Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Dr. Ifor Davies, Member for Gower, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

THOMAS BROWN AND SONS LIMITED BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Young Persons

Mr. Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether there are any indications that the prospects of employment for the young are improving.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit): Success in the reduction of inflation, the increase in productivity and greater competitiveness

are improving the prospects for employment generally. The young workers scheme and our plans for a comprehensive one-year training scheme for young people will particularly improve their employment prospects. Restraint in pay bargaining to avoid overpricing labour is, however, still vital.

Mr. Ward: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that a reduction in the relative level of youth pay would probably lead to an increase in youth employment?

Mr. Tebbit: Any reduction in levels of pay is likely to lead to an increase in the demand for labour. That seems to be lesson No. 1 of basic economics. Our efforts to assist employers to lower the costs of labour by way of the young workers scheme seems to be going extremely well.
About 60,000 applications have been approved under the scheme.

Mr. Foster: Does the Secretary of State agree with the recent Manpower Services Commission forecast that prospects for young people will worsen until the third quarter of 1983, when about 60 per cent. of young people will be out of a job? What prospects can he hold out for young people in the North of England, where matters are a good deal worse than in the South? What hope can he hold out for young people in my constituency?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman could not have heard what I said in my original answer. The fall in the rate of inflation is obviously helpful. Today's announcement of a renewed fall in interest rates is also helpful. As British industry becomes more competitive, it is likely to employ more people. The latest survey of youth opportunities programme trainees—although there are some caveats I must include—suggests that some 47 per cent. are getting jobs at the end of their training as opposed to 30 per cent. according to the last survey.

Mr. John Page: At the risk of appearing pompously to enlarge the generation gap, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is certain that his officials are giving sufficient encouragement to young people to go after jobs that may exist, however humble they may be? Is he also


certain that young people are preparing themselves, intellectually and in appearance, to be attractive to employers?

Mr. Tebbit: On my hon. Friend's second point, the youth opportunities programme and the youth training scheme that will follow it will do much to make youngsters more aware of what they need to do by way of training and presentation to sell their services. That is important. Perhaps my hon. Friend refers to Manpower Services Commission officials rather than my own. I am sorry if any of my officials have given any youngsters the impression that they should be too particular about the jobs for which they apply or too demanding about the level of wages for which they ask.

Mr. Christopher Price: Why does the Secretary of State insist on a confrontation with the Manpower Services Commission about the youth training scheme? Is he aware that if he sticks to the £15 compulsory scheme it will clearly be counter-productive, as neither the trade unions nor the MSC will provide the co-operation that he needs to make the scheme work?

Mr. Tebbit: I did not know that I was having a confrontation with the MSC. Nor have I heard anything about a compulsory scheme—no one has proposed one.

Stockport

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people aged 55 years and over are registered as unemployed in the Stockport travel-to-work area.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): At 15 April there were 1,653 people aged 55 years and over registered as unemployed in the Stockport employment office area.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister appreciate that it is extremely depressing for people in this age group to trail around from employer to employer seeking jobs, only to be told that they are too old? Will the Government either allow them to retire and have the dignity of being pensioners, or offer positive inducements to firms to take on people over the age of 55?

Mr. Alison: I agree that it is depressing, whatever one's age, to go regularly to look for work and to be unsuccessful on every occasion. However, the unemployment rate among those aged 55 and over is marginally below the United Kingdom average for unemployed of all ages. That suggests that a premium is attached to mature, adult and, indeed, quite elderly workers—a premium that youngsters often do not have.

Mr. McNally: Is the Minister aware that in areas such as Stockport many older workers have vast experience and skills in high technology industries? As the Secretary of State has said that he wishes to train inexperienced youngsters, will the Government consider schemes to wed to the two factors—the lack of skill among the young, and unemployment among older workers who have skills and experience to transfer?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the new training initiative, which my right hon. Friend was responsible for launching and developing, covers all age

groups and seeks to offer opportunities for training right across the age spectrum, including the more mature and adult workers.

School Leavers

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people who left school at Easter have found employment; how many are still out of work; and how many are engaged on Government-sponsored youth opportunity programmes.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): The information requested is not available. However, it is estimated that of those entering the youth opportunities programme in April, up to 13,000 were 1982 school leavers.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that a further 100,000 school leavers will come on to the unemployment register this month? Is not the trend towards the waste of a whole generation? Does he appreciate, too, that unemployment is becoming little short of a national scandal? When will the Government cease to use unemployment as a means to browbeat working people, bearing in mind the great economic and social damage that is being caused?

Mr. Morrison: I do not find it surprising that the hon. Gentleman uses the political rhetoric of suggesting that the Government are using unemployment to browbeat people. That is untrue, as well he knows. He must be aware that this year we are increasing the number of youth opportunities programme places from 550,000 to 630,000. We believe that that is right in view of the needs of the youngsters concerned.

Mr. Dover: Will the Minister speed up the process by which YOP openings are made available? Is he aware that in the Chorley area it takes up to 10 weeks for an employer to get somebody from the youth unemployment list after registering the vacancy?

Mr. Morrison: I shall certainly ensure that that happens. By and large there has been an improvement in the time within which approval is given. I have made it clear to the careers service that the places are to be filled as quickly as possible.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is there any truth in the suggestion that the Government are considering further changing the way in which unemployment statistics are compiled, so as to remove a further 200,000 from the unemployment record at the stroke of a pen?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.

Secret Ballots

Mr. Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish a discussion document on reform of union rule books and the right for trade unionists to ask for secret ballots within their own unions.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): My right hon. Friend has not yet decided to do so.

Mr. Renton: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the reasons for the present unpopularity of


many trade unions is that without secret ballots they take extreme decisions that do not reflect the wishes of most of their members, but that it is very hard for the majority of members to get the rule book changed? At what stage does he think that it would be appropriate for the Government to intervene to require unions to change their rule books when they refuse to do so?

Mr. Waddington: We have no doubt at all of the need for greater union democracy. We do not underestimate for one moment the need for greater use of secret ballots. It is a scandal that the TUC should boycott the scheme under the 1980 Act, while taking money for shop steward training. The unions must realise that if they do not reform themselves voluntarily the Government will have to take further action. We are giving them the chance to reform themselves voluntarily.

Mr. Park: Why is the Minister even considering a discussion document when he must be aware that unions have rules revision conferences and that if there is great feeling on any matter that is the time and place to alter the rule book? Does he accept, therefore, that it is not for Ministers to propose discussion documents?

Mr. Waddington: I do not think that many hon. Members agree with the hon. Gentleman that all union rule books are so perfect that they safeguard the rights of the members, because clearly they do not. There is a clear call for greater democracy within unions. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the demand for reform comes not just from the moderates in the trade union movement. The defeated candidate for the general secretaryship of the AUEW pointed out only the other day the necessity to ensure proper balloting arrangements.

Working Population

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Employment by how much the working population has reduced in the last three years; and what are the latest estimates for the next five years.

Mr. Alison: Between December 1978 and December 1981 the working population in Great Britain fell by just over half a million. My Department does not produce projections of the working population.

Mr. Chapman: In view of that reply, and the fact that the number of retirement pensioners has increased by 360,000 in the past three years, does my right hon. Friend recognise that an increasing proportion of the population will depend upon fewer and fewer workers, irrespective of the current level of unemployment? Does he agree that that is a significant trend? Do the Government intend to take any initiatives to allay some of the financial and fiscal problems that will arise?

Mr. Alison: It is indeed a worrying trend that the population of working age continues to expand, while the number of jobs available is not keeping pace. That is all the more reason why my hon. Friend should support, as I do, the policies in my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's latest Budget to relieve industry of taxes and to increase incentives to set up new enterprises.

Mr. Varley: As the Minister has confirmed that the number in employment has fallen by about 2 million in three years of Conservative Government, whereas in a comparable period under the Labour Government the

number of people in employment actually rose despite the rise in unemployment, does he agree that those statistics show the complete failure of Government policies in the past three years?

Mr. Alison: They simply show that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to take lags into account.

Mr. Harold Walker: Lags?

Mr. Straw: Old lags like the Minister.

Mr. Alison: The reason why jobs have disappeared recently is that under the Labour Government unit labour costs rose so catastrophically that jobs were destroyed.

Employee Involvement

Mr. Cadbury: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has received any recent representations concerning the extension of employee involvement practices in British industry.

Mr. Waddington: Yes, Sir. It is clear from representations made to me that there is a widespread and growing understanding in industry of the need for more progress in employee involvement, but I have received many representations expressing concern about draft European Community directives which would impose rigid legal systems and could disrupt industrial relations.

Mr. Cadbury: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that some British companies, particularly the Jaguar motor car plants, have made great strides towards greater employee involvement through the use of quality circles? Does he agree that, although quality circles are not appropriate to all industrial relations circumstances, some form of increased employee involvement is necessary to bridge the gap between management and work force, which has dogged this country for far too long?

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend is entirely right to stress the importance of getting rid of the "them and us" attitude in industry. Quality circles can certainly play a part in that. They are performing a useful function at Jaguar. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) told me this morning how successful they were proving in Dunlop, too.

Mr. Radice: Is the Minister aware that according to the CBI only one-third of employers have any kind of formal participative or consultative arrangements? That being so, why have the Government taken no action, legislative or otherwise, to promote participation or industrial democracy, although they have been only too eager to introduce anti-union legislation?

Mr. Waddington: We have not introduced any antiunion legislation. The hon. Gentleman mentioned one result of the survey that was carried out by the CBI. May I remind him of another result of the survey, which is that 84 per cent. of company chief executives who participated in the survey felt that employee involvement policies had brought about tangible gains in performance? I hope that that message has gone home throughout British industry. The difficulty is one that I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises. Although one would wish to give all possible encouragement, one is reluctant to impose any rigid framework that might break across the good employee involvement arrangements that already exist in many parts of British industry. That is the difficulty.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the greatest participation that the Government have introduced into industry is the right of many employees in State-owned industries to buy shares in their companies and to participate thereby in the control, success and profitability of companies such as British Aerospace?

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Government demonstrated their support for employee involvement to no mean tune by selling the National Freight Corporation to its employees. They have set up a genuine prosperous co-operative, not a clapped-out Benn-type set-up such as the Kirkby Manufacturing and Engineering Company.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the Minister examine the papers that are being discussed in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe on employee involvement in trans-national companies? Is he aware that the predecessor to the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), visited the Glacier Metal Company, which is an outstanding example of employee involvement? Will the Minister persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to follow the good example of his predecessor and see for himself the practicalities of genuine employee participation?

Mr. Waddington: I promise the hon. Gentleman that I am doing my best to study the problem. I am going to Germany in the near future to try to increase my education. We have much to learn from what is happening in other countries.

New Training Initiative

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has met the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss the report of the task group on the new training initiative; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the arrangements he is making for the youth training scheme.

Mr. Tebbit: I have spoken to the chairman concerning the youth task group report and youth training recently, and I shall announce the Government's decision on the report as soon as possible.

Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend accept the view of the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, that one of the most important elements in the task group report is the continuing commitment to a training programme? Does he accept that resources so allocated would be a better use of public funds in the long term than the use of similar sums of money to support schemes of early retirement?

Mr. Tebbit: Certainly training is of great importance. Generally, money that is spent on training is money well spent. However, I hope that no one will assume that it should be the Government's business to provide all the money for training, even the training of 16-year-olds. That burden should properly be borne by industry in the long run, although we are making available over £1 billion in the first year of the youth training scheme to launch the scheme and to help to combat the problem of youth unemployment.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend encourage the MSC to extend its excellent programme not just to training for working life but to preparation and training for life in general, because many people will go from one form of working life to another? Unfortunately, many young people will not be going into employment. In many parts of the country there will not be schemes that suit those people. Can we broaden the range of the youth training scheme so that there is general preparation for life?

Mr. Tebbit: I hope that within all the youth training scheme programmes there will be some general training for life which is aimed in particular at the inner urban areas, where many of the youngsters who come forward have not been as well educated as they might have been and are not as well motivated in some cases as they might be. That would be important. If my hon. Friend has further ideas about that, perhaps he would be interested in talking to the chairman of the commission about them.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Secretary of State aware that the reason for scepticism among young people and their parents about his proposed youth training scheme is that the present youth opportunities programme does not seem to be policed adequately by the MSC? There are many examples of young people being exploited by unscrupulous employers who use them as cheap labour. Advice bureaux and surgeries of Members of Parliament, including mine, hear about those examples in areas of high youth unemployment.

Mr. Tebbit: I do not think that there is a great deal of abuse, although I would be the first to admit that there are some such cases. Where they are brought to the notice of the MSC, they are followed up. On a number of occasions, when employers have abused schemes, the schemes have been terminated. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about that, that is all the more reason why he should welcome the youth training scheme, which, because of its nature, is less open to abuse than YOP.

Mr. Forman: In view of the great importance of the Government's new training initiative, does my right hon. Friend recognise the equal importance of accepting the task group report as a whole and not picking and choosing between parts of it?

Mr. Tebbit: I shall discuss that matter further with the chairman in due course. I hope to announce my decision before too long. However, I must say that I made proposals to the commission and the commission has come back with its suggestions. It would be unwise for any of us to take an absolutely rigid attitude—that what we put on the table is the final word and that no modification can be brooked.

Mr. Barry Jones: Has not the right hon. Gentleman suffered a stinging rebuke and a humiliating rebuff by the task group, as it has denounced his plans for compulsion? Is he not totally isolated from the TUC, the commission and the CBI? Why does he not have the courage to admit today that his compulsory £15-a-week scheme is a provocative folly?

Mr. Tebbit: Not least because I have never proposed a compulsory scheme. If the hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues do not understand what the word "compulsory" means, I shall send them a photocopy of the appropriate page of The Oxford English Dictionary.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Straw: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest level of unemployment in (a) North-West England and (b) the United Kingdom.

Mr. Waddington: At 13 May, the numbers of people registered as unemployed in the North-West region and in the United Kingdom were 425,651 and 2,969,443, respectively.

Mr. Straw: Does the Minister have any evidence to contradict yesterday's assessment by the CBI that unemployment will continue to rise in Britain by at least 15,000 a month in manufacturing alone for the rest of the year, and will stay high throughout next year?

Mr. Waddington: We are following the practice of the Labour Government. We are not in the habit of making forecasts. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that the prospect for continued recovery is there—short-time working is down, cost competitiveness in British industry is up, inflation has fallen below 10 per cent., the rate of increase in unemployment has slowed sharply—

Mr. Straw: It is still going up.

Mr. Waddington: —and interests rates are coming down. Those are all good signs. That is all good news.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that in past recessions before unemployment has fallen the number of job vacancies has always risen? Can my hon. and learned Friend say anything about job vacancies that might give us cause for hope?

Mr. Waddington: I have the figures here. The number of job vacancies has increased. However, I shall be unable to find the figures in time to give my hon. Friend the information that he wants. There is some room for encouragement, as there has been a modest increase in job vacancies.

Mr. Radice: How many people have been unemployed for over a year?

Mr. Waddington: About 990,000.

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure and percentage of unemployment.

Mr. Tebbit: At 13 May the number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 2,969,443 and the unemployment rate was 12·4 per cent.

Mr. Ashley: In the light of those disgraceful figures, will the Secretary of State give a guarantee that when the enormous bills for the Falklands operation have to be paid they will not be paid by the millions of unemployed people, through cuts in the special employment measures?

Mr. Tebbit: I see no cause at the moment to expect any cuts in the special employment measures already announced or those that the Government have in view, regardless of any possible consequences of the cost of the Falklands affair.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is difficult to compare exactly the United Kingdom unemployment figures, in numbers and percentages, with those of other manufacturing countries, because we do not have repatriated immigrant workers or national service?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is right. Those factors affect unemployment statistics in other countries. It is

clear, however, that unemployment trends over the past three months show that the United Kingdom has a better record than Belgium, the Netherlands, West Germany, the United States, France, Canada or Greece. Comparing the past three months against the same period a year ago, the figures are encouraging.

Mr. John Grant: In view of the continuing gravity of the figures, will the Secretary of State reject the latest proposals by Sir Derek Rayner and his "razor gang" for cuts in jobcentres and the relegation of jobcentres to back streets? Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that Sir Richard O'Brien, before he was so unceremoniously dumped by the Secretary of State, expressed his serious concern over that possibility?

Mr. Tebbit: Sir Richard O'Brien was not unceremoniously dumped. That is the first point on which the hon. Gentleman is in error. Secondly, the Rayner report cannot sensibly be described as a razor job. It is a serious effort to improve the efficiency and to keep down the costs of the employment service of the Manpower Services Commission. I should have thought that all hon. Members would share that aim.

Mr. Varley: Is not the most terrifying aspect of this awful level of unemployment the long-term unemployment mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley)? I refer to those who have been without a job for 12 months or longer. That figure, as I believe the Secretary of State will admit, will go up even further over the next few months. What action does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take? Is he not aware of the horror and degradation felt by a man or woman who has been unable to get a job for more than 12 months? Why cannot the Secretary of State turn his attention to that aspect of the matter if he cannot do anything about the other? That is the most damaging aspect of unemployment. it is no good the Secretary of State coming to the House of Commons, as he has done on two occasions at Question Time, to try to placate the House by saying that the situation is getting better. 'What is happening is that the situation is getting worse, but more slowly.

Mr. Tebbit: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, now that we have made some progress through the youth training scheme—which I hope will be launched successfully next year—in dealing with the gravest problem of youth unemployment among school leavers, we should turn our attention more to the problems of the long-term unemployed. It was for that. reason that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech offered to make available a further £150 million in order to bring another 100,000 people off the long-term unemployment register and into socially useful work. I am sorry that the initial reaction to the Chancellor's scheme was not more welcoming. I think, for example, of the trade unions. None the less, I hope that it will still be possible to take advantage of that money and to do something to ease the problem to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend ignore the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant)? Is he aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) and a number of other Conservative Members have argued for a long time


that the Manpower Services Commission has been putting far too much money into bricks and mortar in our high streets?
It did not need Sir Derek Rayner's report to make it clear that if the commission had put less money into those expensive buildings there would have been more money available for other things.

Mr. Tebbit: That point has been made to me by many hon. Members and by many members of the public. They say that some of these job shops appear to be sited in needlessly expensive places. They do not have to compete with the high street banks and Marks & Spencer for the most expensive city centre sites.

Mr. Cyril Smith: When the Secretary of State considers the problem of the long-term unemployed, that is to say, those who have been unemployed for a long time, will he take account of the financial difficulties that face those people as a consequence of their own thrift while they were working, especially in terms of loss of benefit because they have capital of more than £2,000? Is it really the policy of the Conservative Government that the long-term unemployed should be penalised for their thrift?

Mr. Tebbit: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is not, strictly speaking, a matter for me. It is, however, fair to say that many people make this point in the country at large. I must make the point that the way in which thrift is most cruelly penalised is through high levels of inflation. This is one of the reasons why the Government have put the issue of dealing with inflation at the top of our priority list.

Mr. Skinner: When the sunshine talk, as evidenced by the Under-Secretary of State in answering an earlier question, is ended, will the Secretary of State accept that the fact staring everyone, particularly the unemployed, in the face is that during the past three years of Tory Government 2 million jobs have gone? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no indication from the Budget, from his words or from anywhere else, that more jobs will be forthcoming, not only for those now unemployed but for the 500,000 school leavers who will shortly be coming on to the market? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that such sunshine talk means nothing to those school leavers unless he can say at the Dispatch Box that they will be given the opportunity of real jobs when they leave school?

Mr. Tebbit: If the hon. Gentleman thinks back he will recollect that the increase in the percentage of unemployment during the first three years in office of this Government has been slightly less than that experienced in the first three years of the Labour Government. Just as my predecessors as Secretary of State in the Labour Government had to tell the hon. Gentleman that Governments cannot create jobs but that customers create jobs, so I must tell the hon. Gentleman exactly the same. The hon. Gentleman did not like it from his own Government. I know that he does not like it from mine.

Wandsworth

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are now unemployed in the Wandsworth area; and how this figure compares with May 1979.

Mr. Waddington: At May 1982, the number of people registered as unemployed in the area covered by the Clapham Junction and Tooting employment offices, which corresponds closely to the London borough of Wandsworth, was 13,143. The corresponding number at May 1979 was 5,698.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Minister agree that there are no prospects of Government policy being likely to result in a reduction in the high level of unemployment in inner city areas such as Wandsworth? In the absence of any initiatives from the Government, will the Minister support those initiatives coming from the Greater London Council, which at least offer the prospect of the creation of a few more jobs in areas like Wandsworth?

Mr. Waddington: Areas such as Wandsworth, and other parts of the country, will benefit as a result of our measures, which are reversing the deep-seated decline in the competitiveness of British industry, and as a result of our measures to create a soundly based economy. Jobs can be created only by firms that provide goods at prices that people are prepared to pay. I remind the hon. Gentleman that one of the most potent factors in the competitiveness of British industry is the amount of tax and rates that it has to pay. The hon. Gentleman should look next door to Wandsworth to see the worse position in Lambeth as a result of the irresponsible policies of the local authority.

Railway Preservation Projects

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the railway preservation projects currently in receipt of help from Manpower Services Commission schemes.

Mr. Peter Morrison: The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, there are a number of schemes of this kind, and if my hon. Friend wishes to know about support for particular railway preservation societies I shall make the necessary inquiries.

Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend accept that these schemes can provide worthwhile employment and training for many people, particularly young people? Is he aware that some of the schemes in which I have been involved have had different attitudes taken to them by different MSC offices in various parts of the country? Will he try do do something to co-ordinate the response that various preservation societies are likely to get if they make a standard application for assistance?

Mr. Morrison: I was glad to hear my hon. Friend say that these schemes play an important role, and I agree that they provide good jobs for the people involved in them. I shall make sure that the commission views each scheme on its merits, but, as my hon. Friend will be aware, there will in some cases be more places available under the community enterprise programme than in other cases.

Mr. Whitney: Will my hon. Friend seek the view of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on whether the survival of ASLEF and its tenacious adherence to working practices established in 1919 should properly be classified as a railway preservation project?

Mr. Morrison: I shall make sure that the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is drawn to my hon. Friend's point.

Unemployment Statistics

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest figures available for the number of people unemployed; and what proportion this is of the potential working population.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the present number of registered unemployed people in the United Kingdom; and what is the latest estimate of the number of unemployed who are not registered.

Mr. Alison: At 13 May the provisional number of people registered as unemployed in the United Kingdom was 2,969,443 and the unemployment rate was 12·4 per cent.
The latest information suggests that in 1979–80 about a third of a million people were seeking work but were not registered as unemployed.

Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister accept that these are serious figures and that the figures for long-term unemployment, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) pointed out, are catastrophic indeed? In contrast to what the Secretary of State said in reply to an earlier question, will the Minister accept that the only way to produce a reasonable improvement in these figures in a measurable amount of time is by a vast increase in public expenditure on capital projects?

Mr. Alison: I do not agree with that proposal. That method has been tried. Throwing money at the problem has no effect other than to increase inflation and increase problems with the balance of payments, thus ultimately destroying jobs.

Mr. Marlow: Would not the number of the unemployed be reduced, as would the amount of juvenile crime, if my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to introduce fiscal policies that would encourage mothers to stay at home and look after their children, which is a very valuable job indeed?

Mr. Alison: That is a question that goes rather wider than my brief, as my hon. Friend will appreciate. However, there are fewer women in work than men, and many women do stay at home and look after their families.

Mr. Craigen: In view of the training schemes to reduce the incidence of unemployment among young people, can we take it that there has been a change of heart at the Department of Employment and that the Government now intend to introduce a payroll tax on employers to fund the training of young people?

Mr. Alison: No, we have no proposal to introduce a payroll tax.

Mr. Harold Walker: Will the Minister comment on the statement in the youth task group's report that the youth training scheme must be voluntary rather than compulsory—that is, a scheme in which people want to take part? Does he agree that we must have a scheme that commands enthusiasm because it is right and fair, makes sense and is what people want to do, rather than an imposed system requiring conformity?

Mr. Alison: That sounds like good sense as the right hon. Gentleman has read it out, and there is certainly no Government proposal to make the scheme compulsory.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects the level of unemployment to fall.

Mr. Peter Morrison: There will be a sustained fall in unemployment when economic recovery is firmly established and our industries are more competitive in world markets.

Mr. Taylor: While I fully support the Government's economic policies, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees that, as there has been a steady deterioration in Britain's relative unemployment position since 1973 in comparison with other Western nations, allied to a sharp increase in the manufacturing trade deficit with the EEC, there is now an overwhelming case for a thorough inquiry by the Government's economic advisers into the effect on unemployment of Britain's current relationships with EEC?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, I do not agree. As my hon. Friend will be aware, there are conflicting reports on the matter. The Cambridge economic policy group suggests a large employment loss, whereas the National Institute for Economic and Social Research suggests a small employment gain. My hon. Friend will also be aware of the enormous growth in exports to the Community. Therefore, there are bound, by definition, to be more jobs available than hitherto.

Mr. John Fraser: Is the Minister aware of the corrosive effects of unemployment on areas such as Lambeth? Can he give a forecast of when unemployment will be at least back to the levels of 1979?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware of the effects that unemployment can have on areas such as Lambeth, and in other parts of the country. However, the hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the Government are spending thousands of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on special employment measures particularly to help such areas.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Marlow: asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for 8 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others before attending the address given by President Reagan in another place. Later I gave a lunch for him and Mrs. Reagan. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Premier of Bermuda. This evening I shall be present at a State banquet given by her Majesty the Queen at Windsor castle in honour of President Reagan.

Mr. Marlow: Is it not now time that the Government directed their policy in the Middle East in favour of the victim and against the aggressor? To that end, will my right hon. Friend tell the Israeli führer to get his extermination squads and infanticides out of the Lebanon? Will she remind him that self-determination is as important for 4¼ million Palestinians as it is for the Falkland Islanders and that the Knesset is no more able to get away with its booty in the Middle East than are the Argentines in the South Atlantic? Will my right hon. Friend combine


with others, by whatever means are necessary, to ensure the establishment of a Palestinian State alongside a secure Israel?

The Prime Minister: We supported the motion in the Security Council, which respects the Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and which we wish to see restored. With regard to my hon. Friend's remarks about self-determination, we believe in it as a principle. It is important both for the Falklands and for the Palestinian people, and we have never hesitated to accept that. We fully support the efforts of the United States to re-establish the ceasefire and we shall work with Mr. Habib to that end.

Dr. Owen: Is the Prime Minister aware that if peace is to be restored to the Lebanon, it must be obvious to many who watched television last night that something must be done about the United Nations' peacekeeping force in the Lebanon? It was clear that the Israelis had been in the Lebanon for a long time, as had the PLO. Will the British Government make a contribution to a serious United Nations multinational peacekeeping effort in the Lebanon, as we have made a multinational contribution in the Sinai?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will be as aware as I am of the history of United Nations peacekeeping forces. He will recollect that in 1967 there was a similar occasion when the United Nations peacekeeping force was withdrawn as a prelude to the hostilities that developed later. As the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, we still contribute to United Nations peacekeeping forces, particularly in such places as Cyprus. I share the views that the right hon. Gentleman earlier expressed, that these United Nations peacekeeping forces are too few and are not wholly effective, but I do not think that we can deal with that immediately. It is a tragedy, and only when we have an effective force shall we be able truly to stop aggression.

Sir Hugh Fraser: While I appreciate my right hon. Friend's efforts to co-operate with the Americans and Mr. Habib, may I ask her to recognise the fact that the provocation of Israel has been intolerable? Secondly, will she recognise that, because of the PLO and the Syrians, the State of the Lebanon has ceased to exist as a sovereign State, which has led to the problems that we face today?

The Prime Minister: I would not say that Lebanon had ceased to exist as a sovereign State. Its territorial integrity must be restored. We condemn all aggressive activity, whether within the Lebanon, on the Israel-Lebanon border or across that border into Israel. We condemn it all equally.

Mr. Beith: asked the Prime Minister if who will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Beith: Now that the Prime Minister has heard President Reagan's robust defence of NATO and the values that it exists to support, does she still believe that Britain's defence priority should be to maintain the ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons independently of NATO, or should it be to support NATO as a deterrent and strengthen the conventional forces that have proved so important to us?

The Prime Minister: Deterrence consists of being able to deter the potential aggressor. If the potential aggressor is a nuclear power, it would not be a deterrent to have only conventional forces. That would mean that an aggressor could promptly decide to go nuclear and we should have no defence. Therefore, we should have not only a conventional defence but an independent nuclear deterrent if Britain's belief in freedom is to be properly and fully protected.

Mr. John Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although it is unfortunate that publicity should discriminate between one gallant corps and another, the Ministry of Defence and the media have given no publicity to the presence of the 36 Engineer Regiment in the Falkland Islands, which comes from Chatham and Maidstone? We hear little about these essential soldiers, whereas we do hear about the more romantic side. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that we shall hear more in the media about their good work?

The Prime Minister: I am amazed that there is something that has not been set out in the media. May I make it clear that the defence of freedom and the rule of law is indivisible and that the foremost efforts of every soldier, sailor and airman, and of the public in support of them, are needed if that freedom is to be secure? I gladly pay tribute to those soldiers to whom my hon. Friend referred, as indeed to them all. They never let Britain down. May we never let them down.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Prime Minister use this, the first possible occasion, to express the shock and disgust of the House at the cold-blooded shooting in our streets of ambassador Argov? Does the right hon. Lady recognise that no nation worthy of its salt can sit and do nothing while its ambassadors are shot and its people are terrorised from across its borders?

The Prime Minister: I gladly condemn totally the utterly brutal attack on ambassador Argov. He is a most distinguished ambassador, held in great esteem in Britain and a distinguished representative of his country. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the police were swift in their action and are to be congratulated. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that we shall do everything to stamp out tyranny and terrorism wherever it occurs.

Mr. Walters: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cynical Israeli aggression against the Lebanon is threatening peace in the whole area? Does she agree also that aggression should not be rewarded and that we should effectively combine with the United States? That means that the United States should not supply 75 F16s to Israel, since that action was one of the causes of the attack on Lebanon.

The Prime Minister: I have made our position perfectly clear. We support the United Nations Security Council resolution, which requires that the territorial integrity of the Lebanon should be respected. We equally condemn the aggressive activity and hostilities that have taken place across the Israel-Lebanon border. It is important to condemn such aggression and hostility wherever it occurs. It is equally important to uphold the right of self-determination. If one demands it for oneself, one must expect it to be applied to others.

Mr. Skinner: Which side are you on?

The Prime Minister: I am on the side of certain principles which I have always upheld and will continue to uphold.

Mr. Foot: May I concur with what the right hon. Lady said about the appalling attack upon the Israeli ambassador? May I also concur with what she has said about the rights of the State of Lebanon? Lebanon has as much right to exist as any other State. We have a duty to do our best to uphold its rights, along with those of other small countries.
May I revert to the Falkland Islands? Since the House last met, the military forces have conducted considerable operations win great skill and courage, as the House would expect. Unfortunately, British diplomacy cannot say the same thing. The right hon. Lady and the Government have sought to use the veto at the United Nations. Does the right hon. Lady not think that that is a regrettable development? Can she tell us what steps she is proposing to take to bring another resolution before the United Nations Security Council on which we can obtain the same kind of support that we had two months ago?

The Prime Minister: I totally disassociate myself from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on our activities in the United Nations. The trouble with those latest resolutions was that there was not an unequivocal link between a ceasefire and a withdrawal, which is vital. In those circumstances, we were right to use the British veto. It is only the twentieth British veto, compared with the Soviet Union, which has used the veto 112 times.

Mr. Foot: That is not a good example for the right hon. Lady to choose. Some hon. Members believe that the British Government should not have used the veto in those circumstances—[Interruption.] That is not only our view it was obviously the view of many other countries that were represented at the Security Council. Nine countries voted that way and several abstained.
What will the right hon. Lady do about it next? This may be the best way of preventing further bloodshed. It may well be that the best way of securing an Argentine withdrawal, which we are all in favour of and which is governed by Security Council resolution 502, would be through the United Nations. We were very close to getting an agreement—[Interruption.] As our excellent am bassador at the United Nations made clear, we were close to an agreement a few days ago. Does the right hon. Lady propose, in the interests of preventing further bloodshed, to present a resolution to the United Nations Security Council with the object of achieving an agreement? That is the way to assist.

The Prime Minister: There is no obstacle in the way of Argentine withdrawal, except the Argentines.

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 8 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Admidst all the tension of international events, and during a busy schedule, will the Prime Minister consider the countless thousands of men and women who are at present standing in the dole queue? Now that the public purse strings are open once again, will she give early consideration to the authorisation of some major public expenditure programmes that will help to put those people back to work?
Furthermore, during the recent Versailles summit did the right hon. Lady discuss the Datsun project with Japanese leaders? We are most anxious for that to be situated in South-East Wales, where it can be linked up with the steel industry.

The Prime Minister: I did not discuss the Datsun project with Japanese leaders at the Versailles summit.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's demand for more public expenditure, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a programme of public expenditure in the Budget, particularly designed to get construction work going. There is also an extended programme to assist further employment, operating through the Manpower Services Commission.
With regard to the hon. Member's own constituency, we understand that the Newport borough council area has benefited from £40 million in identifiable grants and loans from the European Community.

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 8 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread dismay at the support being shown by the Spanish Government for the Argentines in the current dispute and at their apparent inability to differentiate between the aggressor and the aggrieved, and between a free society and a totalitarian regime? In the light of that, will she at least consider reviewing the Government's support for Spain's application to join the EEC?

The Prime Minister: It is in the interests of Britain and of Spain's long-term future, that Spain should join the EEC. I believe in the wider and longer view that we must keep the democracies together and keep certain countries, such as Spain, within the democratic sphere of influence. Problems are much more likely to be solved if they fall within, rather than outside, the authority of democratic Governments. We very much hope that the gates to Gibraltar on the Spanish side, will be open on 25 June.

National Health Service (Industrial Dispute)

Mr. David Ennals: (by private notice)M asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about the National Health Service pay dispute and the current industrial action.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): As I explained in my statement to the House on 27 May, offers have been made within the Whitley councils to all the major staff groups in the National Health Service. Certain groups providing direct patient care—in particular nursing and midwifery staff who account for about half the work force, have been offered 6·4 per cent. Doctors and dentists were offered increases averaging 6 per cent. with more for junior doctors following the report of the Doctors and Dentists Review Body. Other staff have received offers worth 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. on present earnings. All told, these offers amount to additional spending of £320 million on directly employed staff in England alone.
Hospital consultants, general practitioners and junior doctors are currently considering, or have accepted, this offer. The Royal College of Nursing ballotted its members on the offer of 6·4 per cent. and a majority voted against acceptance. Following that vote, the leaders of the Royal College of Nursing asked to meet me and I have arranged a meeting for tomorrow. On Thursday, we shall be meeting members of the nurses Whitley council to discuss new permanent arrangements for determining pay.
The Health Service unions representing the other main groups of staff have called their third 24-hour stoppage today in support of their claim for pay increases of about 12 per cent. Preliminary reports suggest that, as on the previous two days of action, the response has varied considerably in different parts of the country. Overall the effect has been that, whilst doctors and the majority of nurses have maintained patient care, admissions in many areas have been restricted to accidents and emergency cases, and routine treatment restricted or denied to patients altogether. Hospital support services have been reduced in many places. In a few areas emergency services have not been maintained and contingency arrangements have had to be brought into effect to provide accident and emergency cover. All of this is bound to have had an adverse effect on patients, which is why we strongly deplore the industrial action being taken.

Mr. Ennals: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is broader opposition in the NHS to the Government's pay proposals than ever before, including in 1979? Does he further accept that this is the first time since the creation of the NHS that the Royal College of Nursing has turned down a pay offer, by an overwhelming majority? Does he also accept that 4 per cent. or 6£4per cent. is an insult to nurses and Health Service workers, when some people on top salaries will receive increases of 18 per cent. and 21 per cent.? Given the damage that is being done to patient care, and in view of the lengthening waiting lists, will the right hon. Gentleman make a new offer, or refer the issue to the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service?

Mr. Fowler: I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The House will not take many lessons

from him, given his role in 1979. As I said, I regret the result of the ballot by the Royal College of Nursing. However, it is fair to point out that only one-third of the members voted in the ballot. I have made it clear that representatives of the Royal College of Nursing are welcome to see me, and a meeting has been arranged tomorrow.
One of the things that we shall discuss at that meeting will be a new permanent arrangement for nurses' pay. The Royal College of Nursing very much wants that and I am committed to it. The ballot shows the urgent need to find a new permanent arrangement. However, it does not tell us how the new money that is being sought throughout the NHS is to be raised. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are spending over £12 billion on the National Health Service, and the service has been increased, not cut.

Several Hon. Members: rose
—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Although this is a private notice question, I shall call three hon. Members from each side before we move on to the statement by the Prime Minister.

Mr. Michael Morris: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the 6·4 per cent. is an average, and that if the Royal College of Nursing wants any change in the mix of that 6·4 per cent. he is open to suggestions? Is my right hon. Friend in a position to tell the Royal College of Nursing and the nursing profession that he will come forward with his proposals for a long-term arrangement within a set time limit?

Mr. Fowler: I can reassure my hon. Friend on both of those points. Clearly, the 6·4 per cent. is an average. I am committed to seeking a new permanent arrangement. Hon. Members may disagree about other things, but I hope they will agree that it makes sense to try to arrange that. Successive Governments have sought to do so, and this Government wish to make progress on the matter.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Minister seems to forget that the Conservative Government destroyed the machinery for finding adequate comparisons for wage rates within the NHS. Since the nurses and the midwives staff side of the Whitley council yesterday decided unanimously to reject the right hon. Gentleman's offer, will he give them a definite timetable for setting up suitable machinery, and will he agree that it will apply to all staff in the NHS and not only to the nurses? Furthermore, will he use the good offices of ACAS to reach a rapid conclusion before the situation escalates beyond control?

Mr. Fowler: Under no circumstances can the Government be accused of dragging their feet about the new permanent arrangement. We have made every effort to bring about such meetings. The first meeting is to take place on Thursday. I am prepared to consider the hon. Lady's important point about the implications for the other staff. If the unions wish to pursue that matter with me, I shall be anxious to respond. I have made it clear that it would not be right to subcontract the decision on what the nation can afford to some form of arbitration procedure.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that much more money would be available for nurses pay and other essential medical purposes if the health authorities contracted out many more of their ancillary services to private enterprise?

Mr. Fowler: I understand that that point and it is important that the public and those in the National Health Service should understand that during the past three years the number employed in the National Health Service has increased by 47,000. As far as I know, that is not remotely true of any other public service or of any part of the private sector.

Mr. Clement Freud: Although we welcome the early meeting, does the Secretary of State recall that we have all long talked of the decency and responsibility of the nursing staff? Now that they have thrown out his pay offer, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is no diminution in their decency and responsibility? Is it not time that he increased the offer and had an incomes policy

Mr. Fowler: I do not know what is the hon. Gentleman's definition of an incomes policy—and I am sure that he does not either. Our respect for the nurses and for the Royal College of Nursing is in no way diminished. That is why the meeting is to take place as speedily as possible.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Has my right hon. Friend been able to make an assessment of the long-term effects in the battle against inflation if all the people at present striking were granted their demands?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend puts her finger on the major point. If we were to accede to the claim that is being put forward we should have to find £750 million extra. I do not believe that it can conceivably make sense—when we have inflation down to single figures—to contemplate such increases. The aim must be not only to reduce inflation but to keep it to single figures.

Mr. Reg Race: Is not the Secretary of State aware that funding a 12 per cent. increase for every person employed in the National Health Service would cost three and a half warheads for the Trident nuclear submarines? Is not the right hon. Gentleman interested in that sort of trade-off and paying National Health Service workers a decent living wage? Is he aware that there is great anger among the trade unions and the Royal College of Nursing about the way in which the proposals for a long-term settlement of nurses pay are being put forward? Why have the Government rejected indexation and links with other groups of workers? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is great anger among National Health Service workers, who want jam today as well as tomorrow?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on virtually every point that he has put forward. If he wants military comparisons, he might reflect on the fact that the Army, on average, is taking a pay increase of 6·1 per cent. I do not believe that even the hon. Gentleman, with his well-known standards of fairness, could accuse the Government of dragging their feet over the long-term arrangements for nurses pay.

Economic Summit (Versailles)

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the economic summit at Versailles which I and my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer attended from 4 to 6 June.
The Heads of State or of Government of the seven principal industrial countries were present, and the European Community was represented by the Prime Minister of Belgium, which at present holds the Presidency in the Community, and by the President of the Commission.
The conference was agreed on what was needed for sound economic management and for achieving a well-based recovery from world recession. This solidarity extended to the political field also and in particular to the Falklands dispute. Our discussions placed emphasis on the value of medium and longer-term policies and were notable for their continuity with the economic policies advocated at earlier summits.
I have placed in the Library of the House the declaration issued at the end of the summit setting out lines of action which we shall follow. We agreed that growth and employment would be increased on a lasting basis only if we were successful in our continuing fight against inflation, which would then help to bring down interest rates and lead to more stable exchange rates. To that end we all agreed to pursue prudent monetary policies and to reduce budgetary deficits.
Recognising a joint responsibility to work for greater stability in the world monetary system, we issued a statement of international monetary undertakings. Believing in the need to expand world trade, we reaffirmed our commitment to strengthen the open trading system as embodied in GATT and to work towards the further opening of markets.
With regard to trade with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, we agreed to work for improved arrangements for the control of exports of strategic goods; to exchange information on all aspects of economic, commercial and financial relations with these countries; and to exercise commercial prudence in limiting export credits to those countries.
The statement of monetary undertakings to which I have referred was one example of a medium-term policy supported by the summit. Another medium-term theme was the necessity to exploit the immense opportunities presented by the new technologies if we are to create the jobs of tomorrow.
It is significant that those countries represented at Versailles which have the lowest inflation and the latest technology are those which have the lowest unemployment rates. We agreed to set up a working group to peruse these technological matters and to submit a report by the end of the year, which could be considered at the next economic summit to be held in 1983 in the United States of America.
The Heads of State and of Government spent some time discussing relations with the developing world. The growth of the developing countries and the deepening of a constructive relationship with them are vital for the political and economic well-being of the whole world. The launching of global negotiations in the United Nations is a major political objective approved by all the participants


in the summit. At the same time, we recognised that, although the United Nations can make requests to the specialised agencies, such as the IMF and the World Bank, it cannot and should not give them instructions.
The Heads of State and of Government agreed to give special encouragement to programmes or arrangements designed to increase food and energy production in developing countries which have to import these essentials and to programmes to address the implications of population growth.
We naturally discussed the situation in the South Atlantic. I set out the British position in detail. As the House knows, British Forces in the Falklands are preparing to repossess Port Stanley. The Secretary-General of the United Nations and certain members of the Security Council have proposed various formulations for a ceasefire. None provides the unequivocal link between an immediate Argentine withdrawal and a ceasefire, which is the only basis on which we could agree to a ceasefire.
The Government have made it clear publicly that if the Argentines tell us that they are prepared to withdraw we shall enable them to do so with safety, dignity and dispatch. So far, we have had no positive response.
I am glad to say that there was agreement among the Heads of State and Government at Versailles on all the essential points of the British position. This was underlined unequivocally by President Mitterrand in his press conference at the end of the meeting.
We also spent some time on East-West relations. A number of us will be attending the NATO summit starting tomorrow and speaking later this month at the second United Nations special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament.
Finally, we discussed the very serious situation in the Middle East. Following a personal request from the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the conference issued a declaration of support for the resolution adopted unanimously by the Security Council on 5 June. This is being followed up by intense diplomatic activity by all participants—in particular the United States of America—designed to re-establish the ceasefire and restore the territorial integrity of Lebanon. I have placed a copy of the summit's declaration in the Library.
All the Heads of State and of Government who took part in this conference were grateful to President Mitterrand for giving us an invaluable opportunity to discuss the economic and political problems facing us today. Our talks were notable for two characteristics—a strong sense of continuity and an encouraging measure of solidarity about our approach to the major issues of the future. We shall be successful in dealing with those issues only if we pursue sustained and co-operative policies. The meeting at Versailles made a significant contribution to that goal.

Mr. Michael Foot: The economic summit and the right hon. Lady's account of it are overshadowed by the military events to which she referred and I shall refer to them. We shall study the statement and communiqué that have been issued on the economic questions to see whether there is any change in the platitudes issued on previous occasions either in piety or in any other field.
The right hon. Lady says that a strong sense of continuity and solidarity is required, but, with 3 million

unemployed in Britain and high unemployment among all the countries represented, was not a much greater effort required at the summit to direct world attention to measures that might succeed? Did she put any economic propositions on behalf of the Government? If so, what were they, what effect are they likely to have on un, employment and what is the likely response? What calculation, if any was made of the likely increase in unemployment in the next 12 months? We wish to debate the question of our economic policies in dealings with other countries. Unfortunately, it appears from the right hon. Lady's report that, having no policy for dealing with our own unemployment, the Government naturally had no policy to put forward in Paris.
I turn to the two major military developments that the conference was bound to discuss. I fully support what the right hon. Lady said at Question Time and in her report to the House about the Middle East. The Security Council resolution should be obeyed. We hope that every pressure will be brought to bear to that end. I repeat that the State of Lebanon has a right to exist along with others. Talk of destroying the State of Lebanon as a solution would be repudiated on both sides of the House.
I welcome especially President Mitterrand's press statement about the Falkland Islands after the summit. It conforms closely to what he said at the beginning of the dispute. What he and others said at the conference about the strength of the British case in the attack on the Falkland Islands is appreciated. But what steps should be taken to deal with the immediate situation? The right hon. Lady cannot dismiss the differences in the way that she did. I ask her again whether she is saying now, and whether she told her colleagues in Paris, that nothing further is to be done at the Security Council. Because there was not a satisfactory link between Argentine withdrawal and a ceasefire in the resolution before the Security Council at the end of last week, is she saying that that is the end of the matter for the Security Council? If the Government do not like the link in that resolution, can they not get a better one and take that back to the Security Council? Would that not be the favoured option among many of the countries with which she discussed the matter?
We can all read the reports of what is said in the United States, France and elsewhere, but is it important to avoid bloodshed over the next 48 hours and longer. It is important to have a diplomatic solution of the problem, to which we are pledged, the right hon. Lady as much as anybody. I ask her again whether in Paris she put forward any new initiative that the Government would take at the Security Council? If not, why not?

The Prime Minister: Among the many points that the right hon. Gentleman made he said that the Versailles statement was platitudinous. Some of it may be, but platitudes are platitudes because they are true, and it is not a bad idea to be on the side of truth. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Truisms".] Truisms are not bad either. What does the hon. Gentleman want, "falsisms"?
There was solidarity on the economic and political side at the Versailles summit and in particular on how to tackle unemployment. That is all set out in the communiqué and I set it out in my statement. We cannot achieve soundly based growth unless we get inflation down further and interest rates lower. For that we must get budget deficits down. We must also encourage the open trading system and the new technologies—the one to achieve soundly


based financial policies and the other to achieve expansion of world trade and growth in tomorrow's jobs, which is vital to the creation of new jobs.
Yes, we supported the resolution on the Middle East. Yes, we respect the territorial integrity of Lebanon and support the efforts of Mr. Habib. We also believe—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree—that Lebanon's neighbours have a right to exist in peace and security, so we condemn just as much the activities across the Lebanese border to Israel.
We have struggled for a negotiated settlement on the Falklands for eight weeks. Only one thing stands in the way: the Argentine will not withdraw unless she can retain some of the things that she got as a result of invasion. That is totally and utterly insupportable. As President Mitterrand stated in summing up:
We expressed our complete solidarity with the United Kingdom who has been the victim of aggression and whose national interest and national pride has been injured. This solidarity is quite natural. The United Kingdom must recover what she has lost and we must do what we can to ensure that peace will prevail over war.
The right hon. Gentleman has asked about our initiatives. We have tried for a long time to reach a solution, both through Secretary Haig and the United Nations Security Council. We shall now have to take by force what the Argentines would not give up by adhering to the Security Council resolution.

Mr. Foot: I fully understand the situation that the right hon. Lady describes about the Falkland Islands. We have been clear about it throughout. Although I fully understand that the cause of the problem is the Argentine invasion and that a solution would be Argentine withdrawal, is the right hon. Lady saying that she will take no further step at the Security Council and have no further discussions with the Secretary-General? Has she no further interest in handling the matter through diplomacy? If so, she is going back on the undertaking that she gave on behalf of this country to the Security Council and in previous discussions. Most of the other countries represented in Paris would also urge that, if they did not like the previous resolution, the Government should come forward with another resolution and try to get full support for it.

The Prime Minister: If I may respectfully say so, the right hon. Gentleman misses the point. What we wish to secure is Argentine withdrawal. We have tried for eight weeks through the Security Council and the good offices of Secretary Haig and Peru to secure Argentine withdrawal. We have not been successful. The moment that the Argentines say that they will withdraw we can have peace quickly. It is not the United Nations, Secretary Haig or the British Government who stand in the way; it is the Argentine junta, who will not withdraw. If they will not do so through negotiation, they must be made to by force.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall do my best to call all hon. Members who have already risen in their places, as long as questions are brief.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Was there substantial discussion about the urgent question of greater exchange rate stability, or was it merely something in the communiqué? Does the right hon. Lady believe that the Americans will take greater practical steps to intervene and to give greater stability to the dollar exchange rate?

The Prime Minister: We agreed that we shall achieve greater exchange rate stability only if we follow similar policies in reducing inflation. That is in the communiqué and it is the considered decision of all those at Versailles. We issued a statement on international monetary undertakings which said:
We are ready, if necessary, to use intervention in exchange markets to counter disorderly conditions as provided for under article 4 of the IMF articles of agreement.
The right hon. Gentleman will know that that is intervention only to smooth out disorderly markets. We agreed that we cannot intervene to overcome fundamental disparities in exchange rates caused by fundamental differences in economic policies.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Amid the international confusion outside Europe, is it not encouraging that the great democratic States have agreed on their principles and support for each other, but is it not disappointing that the Leader of the Opposition so superficially described the communiqué as mere platitudes?

The Prime Minister: It is disappointing. The summit was united about what was to be done on economic, employment and political policies. It augurs well for the future of those three matters that we intend to carry out those agreements and to have more and more co-operation between us.

Mr. David Steel: Whatever the merits of the medium and long-term economic policies that the Prime Minister described, is she aware that there w 11 be some anxiety about the emphasis on continuity with the economic policies advocated at earlier summits? Is she aware that since the summit in Ottawa a year ago unemployment in the developed world has risen by 5 million, to which Britain has made a substantial contribution? Was there no discussion about the social effects of mass unemployment and a determination to introduce urgent measures to reduce it?

The Prime Minister: Yes, indeed, but every country represented at Versailles is now pursuing economic policies designed to reduce inflation and to try to keep budgetary deficits in check or, in so far as they are high, to try to reduce them in order to reduce interest rates. We are also aware that we are in what President Mitterrand called the third industrial revolution and the immediate effect of new technologies is to reduce the numbers of people employed in manufacturing. The later effect is probably to increase them as new products become possible because of the new technologies and many more people move to new initiatives in service industries.
We were all agreed on those matters and that is why the right hon. Gentleman will find three distinct approaches in the communiqué: the economic measures that must be taken, what must be done in open trade to expand world trade, and what must be done in the new technologies to secure the jobs of tomorrow. The right hon. Gentleman will find that it all hangs together.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: As to the part of the communiqué that limits the Government's subsidised trade credits to the Soviet Union, what are the practical means and measures by which that is to be achieved? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is no danger that, as in other cases, the French will simply fill the vacuum of our credit restraint by increasing their exports of subsidised and financed goods to the Communist world?

The Prime Minister: The most obvious means, as the EEC has done but which has not yet extended to the OECD, is to increase the amount of credit that can be given to Soviet goods to the highest consensus rate and not at the present lower consensus rate. Another means would be to reduce the percentage of any order that is covered by guarantees. Until we know how precisely that will be put into effect, we have agreed to have a surveillance of all economic, financial and commercial transactions with the Soviet bloc and then we shall have the facts and figures upon which to formulate a specific conclusion relating to the EEC and the OECD. In the meantime, we have already agreed on certain measures within the EEC.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Prime Minister referred to her solidarity with President Reagan on the Falkland Islands. Can she ascertain whether the President authorised his ambassador at large, the Spanish-speaking Major-General Vernon Walters, either at the end of last year or in January of this year, to give the clear impression to Buenos Aires that the Americans were thinking of a joint Argentine-American base in the Falkland Islands to curb Russian penetration in the South Atlantic? Can the Prime Minister clear up that matter of fact before President Reagan leaves our shores?

The Prime Minister: I knew nothing about that matter until the hon. Gentleman wrote to me about it. I know that the United States of America is staunchly behind Britain in its action in the Falkland Islands and is giving us substantial practical help, as we would expect from a staunch ally.

Mr. Eric Cockeram: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the most effective step to encourage increased investment and therefore increased employment is to lower the cost of borrowing? Did she bring home to President Reagan the fact that high interest rates on the other side of the Atlantic are having a knock-on effect in keeping interest rates high on this side of the Atlantic, thereby discouraging investment and those who are battling against unemployment?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that we are not likely to have considerable expansion in employment opportunities unless and until we reduce interest rates. I am glad that the base rate has fallen today in some major British banks. To get interest rates down we must reduce both inflation and deficits.
We had a long discussion on how best to do that, and we agreed on the importance of reducing deficits. We discussed the matter with representatives of the United States of America, who pointed out that there are two ways in which to reduce deficits. One is by reducing expenditure, and the other is by increasing taxation. With present levels of Government expenditure, America is naturally anxious to reduce the deficit by reducing expenditure. We agree that that approach is right. President Reagan is anxious to reduce the deficit not only for one year but for a succession of years so that the market can have a clear signal that not only inflation but the deficit is decreasing in America. Then there will be a strong hope of reducing interest rates.

Mr. Frank Hooley: As to the territorial integrity of Lebanon, was there any discussion on how the United Nations peacekeeping role could be strengthened, especially by including contingents from the

permanent members of the Security Council, which is about the only way in which Israel's continued aggression is likely to be deterred?

The Prime Minister: We did not discuss that matter. I agree with the implication behind the hon. Gentleman's question. It is a tragedy that the United Nations cannot have an effective peacekeeping force. If it did, it would stop aggression, but so far it has not been able to do that. The only occasion on which I remember its being effective was when the North Koreans refused to withdraw from South Korea. There was a United Nations operation—Russia was absent from the Security Council at the vote—to secure that withdrawal.

Mr. Harry Greenway: As to interest rates, did President Reagan say anything about the time scale of the success of his policies—we know that they are moving well—and whether there might be a substantial fall in American interest rates?

The Prime Minister: American interest rates have come down from their previous very high level. I do not answer for American interest rates, but I am sure that the President has as high hopes that Congress will reduce expenditure, as I sometimes have near Budget time that the House will agree to reduce expenditure.

Mr. Sidney Bidwell: Does the Prime Minister agree that there is great public anxiety about the assault on Port Stanley, which might create more bloodshed that we have yet seen in the Falkland Islands? Does she agree that the public would wish to be satisfied that the Government were straining every nerve to put diplomatic pressure on Argentina to get a change of attitude? What is the effect of the leaflet raids on the Argentines around Port Stanley? Are any messages coming through that a surrender or a collapse of morale is imminent?

The Prime Minister: We have followed every practical path to secure the withdrawal of Argentine forces from the islands without having to use force. If the will had existed, they would and could have withdrawn before now. If the will and consent were there now, they would need only contact the commander in the field and the withdrawal could be arranged before battle. As I said, so far there has been no response whatsoever. The reason why withdrawal has not been secured has nothing to do with diplomacy or with this country. It has to do with the refusal of the Argentine junta to withdraw.

Mr. Robert Adley: In regard to the plight of the Lebanon, can my right hon. Friend confirm that there has been no shelling of Israel from the Lebanon for a year since the ceasefire last July? Does she not agree that it is an open secret that Mr. Begin has been waiting for any excuse to launch an invasion of the Lebanon? Does she not seriously think that President Reagan has to be made aware of the views of the European countries that America holds the key to peace in the Middle East? Before President Reagan leaves, will she once again impress upon him the view which she has expressed previously, and which the European Economic Community countries have put, that America has to do its duty by the rest of the world to ensure that the Israeli militarist role in the Middle East is curbed?

The Prime Minister: I am not able to confirm what my hon. Friend has said because I cannot confirm which of the


many differing reports that we have heard is true. It is likely that there has been some shelling both in the Lebanon and across the border from the Lebanon to Galilee. That is the report that was given to us at Versailles. I agree with the reasoning underlying my hon. Friend's question, which is that the problem between Israel and the Palestinians in the Lebanon will be solved only when the future of the Palestinian people themselves is resolved. Any country that demands the right of self-determination for itself must extend that same right to others, including the Palestinian people.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Prime Minister recall that, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) came back from the summits that he attended, she used to say from the Dispatch Box that they were a waste of time and of public money, never mind the platitudes? Is she aware that, almost without exception, at the eight summits that have been held since their inception, unemployment has increased throughout all the participating countries? Can she tell us whether those at the meeting in Versailles discussed what many of us consider to be the most important factor affecting the whole Western world and now Eastern European countries as well—the massive amounts of money owed by debtor countries, mainly to the United States and to the OPEC countries? Is she aware that some of the people who write in the City columns are suggesting that there is on the horizon a crash which will be greater than that of 1929–31? Why did the people at Versailles not discuss that most important matter instead of trotting out platitudes?

The Prime Minister: As for the number of summits, I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I have expressed the view previously. There is one economic summit and three European Council summits a year. There is one Commonwealth summit every two years. That is clearly not too often; nor is the one economic summit a year. Then we have the North Atlantic Council summit. Added together there is rather a lot. Two European Council summits a year and not three would be sufficient. A number of us hold that view.
The hon. Gentleman said that unemployment had gone up during the summits. But the summits were meeting when unemployment was going down as well, so I do not think that it is necessarily due to the summits.
The present unemployment is partly the price we are paying for the 27 per cent. inflation which existed during the earlier part of the Labour Government. Inflation creates unemployment. We are now all determined that we shall have soundly based expansion. We believe that the programme we set out at the summit is the way to do it.
We addressed ourselves to the subject of money owed by debtor countries to the West. It was precisely because of that that we agreed to try to limit in future credits to the Eastern bloc. The credits given by all the Western countries to the Eastern bloc have amounted to such a sum that it cannot finance it. It is having to put both oil and gold on the market, which is having its effect on the markets of the world. The answer is to have a system whereby we look at all the facts and figures and then limit the credits to the Eastern bloc. That will also be very much better for the Western financial system.

Mr. James Hill: Spain is now a member of NATO. My right hon. Friend mentioned that

She will be attending a NATO conference tomorrow. It may be a golden opportunity to counteract some of the Argentine propaganda that is widespread in Spain and also to put the United Kingdom point of view. One of the lessons that has come out of the Falkland Islands war is that the NATO countries should look not only to the North Atlantic: we must preserve our Southern Atlantic sea base—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman ought to ask a question because other hon. Members are waiting to do SO.

Mr. Hill: Should not NATO look to having a base in the Falkland Islands with a view to preserving the sea lanes in the South Atlantic?

The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend will agree that we welcome Spain to NATO. We believe that it strengthens NATO and that it strengthens Europe as a whole. I take his point about the Argentine propaganda and the effect that it may have on some of the people in Spain. We nevertheless hope that the Spanish gates to Gibraltar will be open towards the end of this month.
On my hon. Friend's point about operations outside the NATO area, we have always understood that our defence did not end with the boundaries of the NATO area. We have always been prepared to respond to activities elsewhere. There was a point in the last defence White Paper about this. When the new defence White Paper comes out, I am sure that there will be something in it, too. My hon. Friend will remember that there was a suggestion in the United States, which we are prepared to take aboard, about a rapid deployment force. It did not always meet with the greatest praise or support from the Opposition Benches, although it did from us. What has happened has shown how wise that policy was.
We cannot now go into the question of the Falklands as a base. There has been a suggestion that there should also be a South Atlantic treaty organisation. Of course, the defence of the Falkland Islands will have to be well and truly secured by one means or another.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In the communiqué the right hon. Lady appears to have the support of most Heads of State for her policy in the Falkland Islands and for Argentine withdrawal. Is it not true that among the European heads of State there is much dissent about whether she can get a long-term solution and that we may well be in for an indefinite war?

The Prime Minister: When we have repossessed the Falkland Islands, obviously we shall have also to try to get an armistice on the mainland. If we are nor successful, let there be no doubt about whose fault it will be: it will be that of the military junta in the Argentine.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend said that there was unanimous support at the summit for our actions in the Falkland Islands. Is it not true, however, that there is a widening divergence between ourselves and the Irish Republic? In view of the sacrifices being made by the task force, is it not time that we considered whether it was appropriate that people who owe allegiance to the Irish Republic should be entitled to vote in our elections?

The Prime Minister: Obviously I have been very concerned about some of the proposals put forward by the Irish Republic, which is the only neutral member of the


European Economic Community. We did not discuss at the summit the Irish Republic or its future relationship with the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The Prime Minister spoke of curbing budget deficits and controlling inflation as means of dealing with unemployment. Will she now confirm that the Commission put forward an action programme for a substantial public investment programme in the Community, involving construction, energy conservation and expenditure on transport infrastructure, subsequent to the Budget in this House? Will she tell us what attitude Her Majesty's Government will take towards that proposal for a common European programme on unemployment?

The Prime Minister: Yes, but when the European Community has put forward a public investment programme it has always made it clear that, to get a public investment programme, one must cut down on current expenditure. It has never put it forward as an addition to general expenditure; it has been as a substitution of investment expenditure for consumption expenditure. That has been clear time and again. The right hon. Lady said that it was put forward after our Budget. It will not have escaped her attention that in this House we have steadily been getting down deficits, and we are absolutely in tune with the advice of the Versailles Heads of State in getting down inflation, deficits and interest rates.

NEW MEMBERS

The following Members took and subscribed the Oath:

Timothy John Smith, Esq., for Beaconsfield.

Angela Claire Rosemary Rumbold, for Mitcham and Morden.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that, when an hon. Member decides to apply for the stewardship of the Manor of Northstead or the Chiltern Hundreds, the application must go to you. In view of the recent application by the last Member for Mitcham and Morden, I wonder whether there have been any more inquiries in that connection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not often that the hon. Member for Boslover (Mr. Skinner) slips up on a point of fact. Actually, the application goes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I give that information in case anyone else needs it.

FALKLAND ISLANDS

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the latest position in the Falkland Islands".
It must be a matter of incredulity to many people outside the House that we can discuss devolution for Northern Ireland without a statement from the Foreign Secretary on the whole issue that surrounds the use by this country of the veto in the United Nations, and in the absence of any statement by the Secretary of State for Defence on circumstances in which our country is slithering into a British Vietnam in the South Atlantic.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), the Prime Minister demonstrated the unreality of her thinking when she used the term "armistice" in that context. What evidence is there that any country in South America, let alone Argentina, will see the lowering of a flag, which they conceive to be the South American, not just the Argentinian, flag?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must argue the case of urgency and importance, and not make the speech that he would make about the Falklands if I were to grant his application.

Mr. Dalyell: I know that very well. I shall therefore leave the matter of importance as I have left it.
There is a very important matter of urgency. Before the American President leaves these shores tomorrow, should he not be asked the crucial question of precisely what he said to Major-General Vernon Walters and other leading officials from the United States who had regular contacts with the Government in Buenos Aires throughout the period October 1981 to January and February 1982?
If it turns out to be true that senior Americans, with the authorisation of the only man who can clear up this mystery—in other words, the President of the United States—did indeed give the junta and its advisers the impression that the Americans were serious in establishing a base in the south Atlantic to curb Russian penetration, and if it is also true that the American Government were asked at the highest level in January of this year what they


thought the British reaction would be to a military takeover of the Falkland Islands, and their advice was that the British would protest verbally and do little else, I submit that these are matters of considerable importance to our country. They are the whole basis of the war without end that we seem to be slithering into.
In those circumstances, is it not a matter of urgency that the one man on the face of the planet who can clear up these matters, the President of the United States, should be asked those leading questions and should give a public answer before he, as our guest, leaves this country.
I therefore put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that these matters take some precedence over the prospect of devolution in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Speaker: Of course, the latter point is not a matter on which I am immediately asked to rule.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) gave me notice this morning before 12 o'clock that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the latest position in the Falkland Islands".
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9, I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision. I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said, and he knows that I did, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the Sheep Variable Premium (Protection of Payments) (Amendment) Order 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 726) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Companies and Building Societies

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring a Bill to amend the law relating to the election and responsibilities of directors of companies and building societies; to provide for the eligibility of candidates for such directorships; to require the circulation of particulars of such candidates to the members and for the consideration of the appointment of non-executive directors before any election of directors; to make new provision in regard to the amendment of memoranda and articles of association of companies; and to make other changes in the law relating to companies and building societies.
As the House knows, I have campaigned for a number of years to find ways of strengthening the influence of shareholders as a force working for the maintenance of the efficiency of the executive management of public companies. In general I have a great admiration for the structure of the British public company, which has evolved over many years; but we must be concerned about the number of occasions which have been brought to public notice lately where firms are not operating quite as efficiently as they ought to be or could be. Minor changes in the law might have an extremely beneficial effect in strengthening the effectiveness and the standing of the supervisory elements which are part of the structure of public companies. I am thinking in particular of the non-executive director:; and the auditors.
When I began to introduce my series of Bills—the Bill I am seeking to introduce today is another—I was under the impression that the best way to operate would be to require all public companies to appoint not fewer than three non-executive directors. I still believe that that would be a good target for companies to aim at, but I am influenced by the number of people who think it would be difficult to introduce such a requirement by statute and that it is better for companies to find their way to it on their own and to select people for the non-executive directors' role over the course of time, rather than in a tremendous hurry in response to legislation.
So, in this Bill, I am looking for less dramatic ways of increasing the authority of non-executive directors on the boards of public companies. I know that a number of hon. Members feel that we already have a mass of company law, much of which is hard to digest, and that to add still more to it would place a burden on companies which it would be better to avoid. In answer to that criticism I say that so much of our company law is not quite as effective as it ought to be, and is sometimes difficult to interpret. A short Bill which makes some of the existing law easier to operate and to understand would serve a useful purpose without adding to the burdens on management.
I suggest, for example, that the balance sheet of every public company should state which of the directors are non-executive directors. That does not change their functions in any way but it would help the shareholders to discern the structure of the board. When there is a vacancy which has to be filled by the election of a director it ought to be easier for a group of shareholders to nominate a candidate of their own if they are not satisfied that a nominee who has been put forward by the company is necessarily the best person to fill the vacancy. The particulars of candidates for board vacancies should be circulated in advance of the meeting at which the election


is to take place, together with the names and particulars of candidates who can show that they are sponsored by a significant body of shareholders.
In the Bill I am seeking to include provision for building societies. This raises a point about which a number of hon. Members are concerned. There have been some cases lately where members of building societies have been frustrated in seeking to put forward names of candidates for the board. There are evidently gaps in building society law which have been shown up by recent controversies and which ought to be put right. Building societies are not companies. In my Bill, therefore, it would be necessary to introduce a separate clause to deal with this matter. With the help of hon. Members on both sides of the House I hope to be able to table a clause—or a series of clauses—in relation to building societies that will attract the support of colleagues on both sides of the House.
With regard to the auditors, it would be helpful in cases where management is not as well informed as it ought to be about what is happening within the company if the auditors were to have limited powers to encourage companies to improve their internal control and forecasting procedures. In previous Bills I have introduced a formula which I believe would be helpful in this respect. I would be ready to amend my suggestion if colleagues felt that it was not quite in the form in which it would be most acceptable to the profession, but I believe that the majority of auditors would agree that problems often arise within companies because of the lack of information which could be readily obtained, or through the lack of forecasts which ought to be made if the board is acting prudently.
The Bill would require large public companies—firms with at least 50,000 employees or a turnover of at least £200 million a year—to make a small change in the procedure at their annual general meetings. I suggest that one of the items that would have to be considered would be the appointment or re-appointment of an audit committee. It does not place a heavy burden on such companies simply to require them to include that item on the agenda of their annual general meetings. The effect would be helpful, however, because it would require the chairman before each annual general meeting to give some consideration to the reply he would give if this question were to be raised by a shareholder. It is therefore a provision which would keep the subject of the appointment of an audit committee alive. At any rate, it would be brought up once a year.
If a shareholder who is familiar with the American practice in respect of audit committees wanted to raise this point he could not be ruled out of order in so doing. That

would also be helpful, because the annual general meeting is sometimes a short and formal affair which is autocratically managed from the platform. Shareholders often feel that they have little opportunity to make their point if they rise to speak at an annual general meeting.
I am aware in seeking leave to introduce the Bill at this stage in the Session that there is little chance of its completing all its stages. I hope, nevertheless, that the House will be willing to allow me to do so. The campaign that I have sustained over a number of years, particularly with regard to the status of non-executive directors, is having effect. The Institute of Directors favours the idea and is making facilities for its members to choose suitable non-executive directors to add to their boards. In recent weeks it has been announced that the Stock Exchange and the Bank of England are doing very much the same and have set up an institution that will promote the idea of appointing non-executive directors to public companies and also help firms to find suitable people to fill these responsible positions.
I believe that the work that I have done with the support of Members on both sides of the House has been fruitful, but that this is not the moment to give up. I hope that in due course I may actually succeed in changing our company law, at any rate in small respects, but in ways which would accelerate the appointment of non-executive directors and which would be helpful to the auditors. I hope therefore that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, Mr. Sidney Bidwell, Mr. David Crouch, Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. Anthony Grant, Mr. Michael Grylls, Mr. John Loveridge, Mr. Tom Normanton, Sir David Price, Mr. Tim Renton, Mr. Robin Squire and Mr. Mark Wolfson.

COMPANIES AND BUILDING SOCIETIES

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the election and responsibilities of directors of companies and building societies; to provide for the eligibility of candidates for such directorships; to require the circulation of particulars of such candidates to the members and for the consideration of the appointment of non-executive directors before any election of directors; to make new provision in regard to the amendment of memoranda and articles of association of companies; and to make other changes in the law relating to companies and building societies: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 July and to be printed. [Bill 137.]

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 27 May].
[Mr. Bernard Weatherill in the Chair]

Mr. Nick Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. You may remember that on Thursday 27 May my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) made the helpful suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should make available the notes on clauses. You may remember, also, that later during that interesting evening I had the misfortune to suffer your displeasure when I suggested how the notes might be made available.
My right hon. Friend said that he would make the notes available on application. I suggested how the notes might be made available and, sadly, Mr. Weatherill, that incurred your wrath. Unhappily, my right hon. Friend did not say to whom the application was to be made. The matter was left somewhat vague, and I assumed that the notes on clauses would be deposited in the Vote Office and that all those who wished to avail themselves of the wisdom of the notes would have to go there to collect them.
I have been twice to the Vote Office—once this morning and once this afternoon—and it appears that the notes are not available there. This is an important constitutional issue and I imagine that many right hon. and hon. Members will wish to have the notes. My right hon. Friend might have meant that if we made an application to him or to the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten), the gentleman with the double first, we would be allowed to have the notes. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to explain the procedure.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. On 27 May my right hon. Friend said:
In the interests of progress and because I should like the Committee to be as well informed as possible, if hon. Members request that the notes be made available to them, I am prepared, on application, to see that they are made available."—[Official Report, 27 May 1982; Vol. 24, c. 1141.]
A number of right hon. and hon. Members have made application to my right hon. Friend and they have been supplied with the notes on clauses. Should my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) be content to make an application to my right hon. Friend, he will ensure that my hon. Friend has the notes on clauses as quickly as possible.

Mr. Budgen: Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend did not say, as is clear from the passage in the Official Report "on application to him". He did not specify to whom the application should be made. If the application has to be made to him, no doubt he will receive about 630 applications, but he may prefer to deal with the issue more impersonally.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) will not think that I am accusing him of being

ungracious. However, I think that it was exceedingly helpful of the Northern Ireland Office, or the Minister speaking for the Northern Ireland Office, to say that notes would be made available to hon. Members who are interested in the subject and are taking part in the debates. I do not think that this is always done, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made a useful offer. Now that we know that we may make application to him, I know that many right hon. and hon. Members will take advantage of the offer. I express my gratitude to him for what he has done.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I do not think that any further points of order arise on this issue. This is not a matter for the Chair. The Minister has given an explanation and I think that we can leave it at that.

Mr. John Farr: Further to the point of order, Mr. Weatherill. This morning I went to the Vote Office to try to obtain a copy of the notes on clauses, but was unable to get one. I then went to the Library, which had a copy and which I managed to photograph. Eventually I managed to get a copy from the Northern Ireland Office. The notes consist of about 50 foolscap pages of close typescript. They are of such value and importance that they should be made more generally available. Some of us were lucky enough to be in the Chamber on Thursday night when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told us how we could get copies of the notes, but the majority of our colleagues were not present. Normally we go to the Vote Office for documents of this nature. I suggest that it would help the Committee's proceedings if this extremely valuable document were to be made more easily available.

The Chairman: I am sure that that has been noted.

Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. You will recall that at 10 o'clock on 27 May a business motion was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), and that there was a Division. The Official Report tells us that 76 Members voted in favour of the motion and that 208 voted against it. I was not in the Chamber when the result of the Division was declared, but it appears from the Official Report that the Noes won. Therefore, I am left wondering why the proceedings continued. Perhaps you will be able to inform me, Mr. Weatherill, that an error has been made and that it will be corrected in the Official Report.

The Chairman: The misprint has been noted and it will be corrected in the bound volume.

Mr. Farr: On another point of order, Mr. Weatherill. An important announcement was made this morning, and it is possible that it escaped your notice. It related to the number of Members who will constitute the Assembly if and when it is established. The announcement related directly to paragraph II of schedule 2. The Bill specifies that the Assembly will consist of 78 Members. However, I understand that the Press Association newssheet announced that there would be 85 Members. I gather that that is not generally known.
That announcement will make a considerable difference to our consideration of the Bill, especially the


clauses that deal with the size of the Assembly and how its Members are to be drawn. It will be helpful if my right hon. Friend will make a statement. Are we proceeding with a Bill that is incorrect in stating that the Assembly will consist of 78 Members, bearing in mind that at 11 o'clock this morning the Press Association told us that the Assembly would consist of 85 members? It is unfair to expect the Committee to proceed in the dark.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I shall try to help my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), who has raised a point of order on a proposal which I understand the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland is making in response to various proposals and objections which have been made to its proposals.
There is a further month during which the present proposal of 85 seats will be considered by objectors and others before the Boundary Commission makes its final decision. As I said to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on a previous occasion, no firm decision has yet been taken on whether the Assembly elections will be based on 17 constituencies or 12 constituencies. As this is an issue that is relevant to a later part of the Bill, I think that it will be better to leave the matter there. The Boundary Commission's proposal will have to be considered in the normal course of events, and not by the Committee at this stage. Therefore, it would be better to wait until we come to the schedule which deals with the matter, by which time the Government will be able to make a statement.

Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. May I suggest that when it is expected that there will be substantial changes to the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should announce them as soon as he knows they are likely to occur? The charm of the Bill lies in its imprecision. It can be supported by those who, like the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), hope to witness a united Ireland by consent. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has not voted against it yet, but may do so in future.
The Bill can also be supported, at least temporarily, by those who want a return to some form of Stormont. Each time there is a change, the delightful imprecise balance is upset. An element of support may be bought, but another element of support is lost. It is important that the Committee knows in advance of any change in the balance of this interestingly vague proposal.
I respectfully suggest that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should adopt the following procedure. At the beginning of each day he should announce whether there is to be a change. If he does not, we shall face the difficulty to which I referred in relation to new clause 4. As I said then, a major concession may be made unexpectedly which, if it had been known earlier, might have changed markedly the attitude of many right hon. and hon. Members to the Bill. It is pure accident that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) happened to see the new proposal on the tape and to raise the issue.

The Chairman: Order. I must stop the hon. Gentleman there. It is a proposal, and we can deal only with amendments as they are tabled.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill, and with specific reference to the intervention of the Secretary of State. He was extremely helpful, not only in his earlier remarks, to which he referred, but with regard to what he has said today. It seems to me that there is a chronological problem, which perhaps I might put briefly. Perhaps the Secretary of State will, within the terms of the point of order, be able to clear up the matter.
As the Secretary of State said, it will be a month from today or yesterday before the Boundary Commission is ready to come to a conclusion and report to him. We all know that, by statute, as soon as the Secretary of State receives a Boundary Commission report—I think that this refers to parliamentary rather than to Assembly seats, but the Secretary of State can put me right—he is obliged forthwith to lay an order before the House embodying the recommendations of the report.
My difficulty, and I believe that of the Committee, is that it is not easy to see how the timing will work in with the proceedings of the Committee. The Secretary of State has candidly said—one should be grateful for this—that he and the Government are keeping an open mind about whether they will adopt what many of us believe is a more reasonable course., which is to follow the recommendations of the Boundary Commission, which involves an 85-seat Assembly—five seats for each of the 17 parliamentary constituencies.
My difficulty is to see how the necessary amendments can be made in the event of the right hon. Gentleman taking that decision. He has admitted and volunteered that he mind is open. Many of us would regard that as the right decision. But how can he amend the Bill in the way that would then be required, without the Boundary Commission having reported and without the House having statutorily approved the Boundary Commission's report?
It is difficult to see how that could be earlier than the second half of next month. Therefore, by the very candour with which the right hon. Gentleman has referred to the matter, he has raised a problem. It will not affect only us. It will affect many others. I hope that he will feel able to say something to clear up that matter.

Mr. Prior: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I am not able to clear up all the difficulties today, because I have myself only just seen the release on the tape about the Boundary Commission's suggestion. One of the factors that must be taken into account with regard to timing is whether it would give sufficient time for the parties, let alone the electoral officers and so on, to make the fresh constituency arrangements that would be necessary to follow 17 from having constituencies, with five Members for each.
I shall consider the matter during the next 24 hours and try to give a more precise report to the Committee, perhaps at the start of tomorrow's business. In view of that, I hope that we can now proceed with today's business.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: Order. The Committee has heard what the Secretary of State has had to say on the matter. I do not think that any further points of order can arise on it.

Mr. James Molyneaux: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. It may be of some help to the


Secretary of State if I provide him with a transcript of the notice that was issued yesterday by the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman accurately said that he understood that the commission had issued a statement. He confirmed that later by saying that he had not seen the statement.
Perhaps hon. Members on this Bench can help by drawing the attention of the Chair and the right hon. Gentleman to the final line. It says:
One month is allowed for further representations. The commission will then decide whether to make further changes.
It is not merely a question of one month, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred. There is a prospect that representations will be made on the statement that was made yesterday. There was an embargo until 1 o'clock, which, for once, the press and the Department seem to have respected. It may be that further representations will be made about the allocation of seats and that other changes could be made, thus producing further delay.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I earnestly wish to assist the Secretary of State in the problem that he now faces. In doing so I refer to new clause 10, and amendment No. 88, which I drafted after discussions with my right hon. and hon. Friends to meet this very point—with great prescience, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) kindly implies.
If one expects that the constituencies of any Assembly will be based on parliamentary constituencies, and if one expects, as do I, that the Bill will not be passed during this Session anyway, but possibly in the future when the new 17 constituencies for Northern Ireland have been created, we shall have to take account of those 17 constituencies rather than the existing 12.
I should like to know how one can take account of the amendment that will be necessary to new clause 10, which proposes to alter the figure of 78 to 68, to take account of the extra members for each of the 17 constituencies. Now that the Government, or the Boundary Commission, have sensibly suggested five Members for each of the 17 constituencies, thereby anticipating, as I did, that the proposal will not be brought into force this year, presumably new clause 10 and amendment No. 88 will likewise have to be amended.
May I take it that I may leave amendment No. 88, which provides for the number of seats in each constituency to be the same, except that it will need to be amended from four to five, and that a manuscript amendment might be made to new clause 10 to substitute the figure of 85 for 78?

The Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would wait on new clause 10, as I have not yet had the opportunity to consider whether it should be selected. The hon. Gentleman wishes to be helpful to me. I assure him that I shall be helpful to him and will give the matter great consideration. However, it does not arise on amendment No. 2.

Clause 1

PROPOSALS FOR GENERAL OR PARTIAL SUSPENSION OF DIRECT RULE

Amendment No.2 proposed [27 May], in page 1, line 9, to leave the words 'by the Assembly and'—[Mr. J Enoch powell.]

5 pm

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'it', and insert 'the Assembly'.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: We return to a very important debate which raises the great issues of legislative devolution. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 concern the devolution of both legislative and Executive functions from Westminster to Northern Ireland. At the beginning of the debate, which was rather late at night, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said:
The amendment would therefore open up the possibility that the Executive might, in effect, place itself in the position of functioning as a local authority through persons who would be responsible to it for the administration of certain functions that at the moment ire administered by the boards or by local authorities."—[official Report, 27 May 1982; Vol. 24, c. 1142.]
The boards to which the right hon. Gentleman referred are the five education and library boards and the four health and social services boards in Northern Ireland. The boards administer those services on behalf of Ministers, whose creatures they largely are, although district councils nominate representatives to sit on them. They also appoint representatives to the Northern Ireland Housing Council, which acts in an advisory capacity to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
In considering the future constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland, the Committee should address itself to the question of how to make these statutory bodies, which are the creatures of Ministers, more responsive and responsible to local democracy. Before embarking on an ambitious and, I believe, unrealisable programme of rolling devolution, we must ask ourselves why local matters which touch the day to day lives of our Ulster fellow subjects in their towns and townlands cannot be entrusted by Parliament to local authorities, as they are elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Mr. John Patten: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I had not intended to interrupt him so early, or indeed at all, but I should draw his attention to the fact that bodies such as statutory health boards are not unknown on this side of the water, where regional and district health authorities and similar bodies fit very well into our constitution.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: My hon. Friend is correct, but I am sure that, with his knowledge, he will also make the comparison between the range of functions discharged by directly elected representatives of the people in England, Scotland and Wales and the functions so discharged in Northern Ireland.
Which functions might well be discharged by local authorities in Northern Ireland? I shall not weary the Committee by listing the various functions now discharged by boards and by the Housing Executive, but also by central Government—by Northern Ireland Departments.
The Northern Ireland Department of the Environment, for which the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) is responsible, is the planning authority for the Province. It is surely part of the answer to my hon. Friend's intervention that in Northern Ireland planning is a matter not for the local authority, but for a Department with a Minister at its head.
The Northern Ireland Department of the Environment also manages the road system throughout the Province. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) is not present, because when he was a Minister at the Northern Ireland Office I conducted with him a correspondence, which I have continued with his successor, about an even more extraordinary matter—the custodianship of car parks. One might have thought that even in Northern Ireland local authorities would be allowed to deal with car parks. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham has now joined us, as I was criticising his stewardship of the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment. He will recall our correspondence about car parks, which, I am glad to say, continues—as do parliamentary questions on the subject. Yet it is still thought right that in Northern Ireland a number of car parks should be a matter not for district councils but for the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment.
Will the Assembly provided for in the Bill be able to play a part in bringing local services under democratic scrutiny and control, and will existing local authorities be able to assume functions which the corresponding authorities in Great Britain take in their stride? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is chary of enlarging the powers of district councils. There have been exchanges in the House on this. My right hon. Friend is impressed by alleged instances of abuse of power—for example, in Lisburn borough council and in other councils, mainly where the Democratic Unionist Party predominates—and wishes to guard the minority against unfairness and discrimination. He is quite right to have that desire. It does his heart credit, and my right hon. Friend has a big heart.
My right hon. Friend also has big powers, however. I suppose that a Secretary of State conducting direct rule has more power than any lord deputy, lord lieutenant or viceroy who held sway in the Ireland of the past. The Secretary of State holds the purse strings. He dispenses or withholds patronage. He possesses the sticks and carrots with which to bash bigotry and reward co-operation by local councillors. Moreover, not all district councillors are controlled by what is known as the majority. There are councils in Northern Ireland—thank God—in which Unionists and nationalists work well together. I have paid tribute more than once to the Social Democratic and Labour Party for the way in which in certain councils it has co-operated and shown restraint when it has been in the majority and the Unionists in the minority. The SDLP is ambivalent on this, however. We are told that it objects to the addition of power to district councils. Yet SDLP members in local government are as eager as councillors of other parties to have scope and opportunity in their work.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, who is not present, now has charge of the Northern Ireland

Department of the Environment and attended the first conference of the Association of Local Authorities held in Newcastle on 28 April, to which the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) referred in an earlier debate on the Bill. The conference asked that the administrative structure of the functions of public health and building control should be returned to district councils. I have not seen the full proceedings of the conference, but I should like to see them. I hope that the Northern Ireland Office will be able to place them in the Library.

Mr. Stanbrook: Perhaps it would be possible for the report of that conference to be made available on application to the Secretary of State.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Whatever is the best way of making the report available, I hope that hon. Members who wish to read the proceedings will have an opportunity to do so. I am not aware that any of the SDLP public representatives attending that conference demurred or objected to the suggestion of the enlargement of the functions of district councils. I might be wrong, but that is my impression.

Viscount Cranborne: I refer to the points of order which were considered by the previous occupant of the Chair. I wonder whether it should be made clear, as was suggested by my hon. Friends, that when the documents are available they should be provided not only to those who apply for them, but generally to hon. Members so that the matters are properly considered at a proper time and in advance of any alterations that are made during the passage of the Bill.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: That is not a matter for me to reply to. Having noted what my hon. Friend has said, I had better pass on. I do not wish to stray beyond the proper course of my argument or the rules of order.

Mr. Molyneaux: It might help the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) if I remind him that, about a year and a half ago, Lisburn borough council in my constituency went on strike for three months as a protest against the withholding of real powers over the planning and upkeep of roads. Those who were most vociferous were the SDLP councillors.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am deeply obliged to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) for his intervention. I hope that what he has said will be carefully noted by those on the Treasury Bench.
The objection, about which we are always told, on the part of the SDLP—which is the other side of politics that is thought of in connection with cross-community agreement—to a full-blown system of local government in Northern Ireland is that the SDLP is wedded to separation from Britain and the Dublin connection. The SDLP argues against what would draw Northern Ireland closer to the mainland and strengthen the bands of the Union. It condemns what so many of us on the Conservative Benches and in Unionist circles here and across the water advocate in that respect precisely because it is committed to an Assembly and a power-sharing Executive which it thinks can hold the door open to the South. That is the devolution for which it stands. It is a form of devolution that is incompatible with the form of devolution for which some Unionists stand.
The then senator Conor Cruise O'Brien, in the course of the second Ewart-Biggs memorial lecture at Queen's


university, Belfast, on 23 June 1978, dwelt on the impossibility of reconciling those two forms of devolution.
He said:
The effort to concentrate the dialogue on such arrangements is profoundly misguided.
Conor Cruise O'Brien was right. The whole tenor of the Bill is profoundly misguided.
5.15pm
Those who believe in power sharing and think that that is the right way to proceed might consider that local government is the sphere in which power sharing is proper and possible. Power sharing is inherent in the British system of local government. It does not always work. It does not always work well. I can think of district councils in England where it does not work well. It is almost more than my life is worth to tell the Committee which party I am thinking of, but I can think of majorities that are not fair to the minority in the allotment of places on important committees or the rotation of the chair or the mayoralty. I can think of district councils that do not act fairly towards the minority.
We do not condemn the English system of local government because of Ken Livingstone, Ted Knight or the Burgesses of Bolsover. We must accept that there are abuses. There are remedies for them. There are and can be remedies in Northern Ireland. In the past, if the nationalist housing authority of Strabane or the Unionist housing authority in Caledon favoured Roman Catholics or Protestants in the allocation of homes—which they did—there were others who treated people justly without regard to faith or faction.
In those days there was a convention that we did not interfere. There was no redress from this place when there was injustice in local government. That has changed. It is a bogey to say that one dare not give more powers to district councils in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland, apart from now being under this one Parliament, has a commissioner for complaints, whose office antedates that of our local commissioners on this side of the water.
One objective of the Assembly is to immerse Northern Ireland politicians, for whom the Secretary of State is eager to find an outlet for their energies, in the tidal waters of rolling devolution. As I ventured to say on a point of order when the Committee last met, the Assembly is conceived of as if it were a constitution-making body. It is a hybrid between the old Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland constitutional convention. According to the White Paper, its
principal task will be to reach agreement on how devolved functions will be exercised".
If agreement on devolution
acceptable to both sides of the community
is not immediately forthcoming, the Assembly will still have
scrutinising, consultative and deliberative functions".
I suggest that the Assembly could have a function in a reordered system of local government.
The expert on Northern Ireland local government is Sir Patrick Macrory. I shall quote a few words from a paper that he prepared for the third Magee local government conference at Magee university college at Londonderry in March 1977. Sir Patrick said that many people in Northern Ireland believed that the abolition of the county councils, the upper tier of local government, was a grievous mistake. He said:
With the wisdom of hindsight, perhaps it was, for, as I wrote recently to The Times, I find it unthinkable that we would have ever have recommended their abolition"—
that is the abolition of the county councils—
and the transfer of their functions to Stormont if we could have forseen that within two years Stormont itself would disappear.
He went on to say:
Our crystal ball wasn't working that well in 1970. and with the disappearance of Stormont the keystone of Macrory' s arch was removed.
He also stated that with the introduction of direct rule in March 1972 after the abolition of the Stormont parliament
at least one County Council … passed a unanimous resolution emphasising the importance of maintaining the County Council in being as a democratic system of local government".
Of course, that kind of resolution was ignored. It would be to minimise the role of district councils, as Sir Patrick points out, to say that they do little more than empty dustbins and bury the dead. There has however been reference to frustration among SDLP councillors no less than among Unionist councillors because—I again quote Sir Patrick—
they are not dealing, as we meant them to deal, with an upper tier of elected local government … but with bureaucracy
According to the White Paper,
the direct rule arrangements rely upon Westminster to provide democratic safeguards on executive authority. They provide no other opportunity for Northern Ireland politicians to play a major part in the decisions affecting the Province".
I suppose that Northern Ireland is about the same size but less populous than Yorkshire. When the Boundary Commission has completed its work, we hope that there will be 17 Members of Parliament from Northern. Ireland. I sometimes think, if I may say so in parenthesis, that the representation of Northern Ireland in the other place also needs attention. However, with 17 hon. Members for Northern Ireland and three Members in the European Parliament, it seems to me that Northern Ireland politicians have the scope they need without the sort of devolution that is contemplated in the Bill.
I have enough Irish and Ulster within me to resent the assumption that Northern Ireland people are not to be trusted with local government powers that are used or abused by such as Ken Livingstone. I am minded of some words of Archbishop Manning:
I do not think that Englishmen are enough aware of the harm that some among us do by a contemptuous, satirical, disrespectful and defiant language in speaking of Ireland and the Irish people.
It seems to me that the spirit of the Bill is colonialist. Direct rule exists in England, in Wales and in Scotland as well as in Northern Ireland. The administration is devolved, or largely devolved, to Edinburgh and Cardiff in the case of Scotland and Wales. Scotland and Wales have their own structure of local government. However, as in England, local government in Wales and Scotland is dependent upon Her Majesty's Government and Parliament here, to which Her Majesty's Government are responsible. Local government acts under powers conferred by Parliament at Westminster.
Direct rule in Northern Ireland differs from direct rule, if I may use the phrase, in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is direct rule of a quasi-colonial sort. By our conduct of direct rule since the abolition of Stormont, we have given colour to the republican propaganda that Northern Ireland is Britain's last colony, due, like the rest, for separation from Britain. We treat our fellow citizens, in the Bill and in other ways, as though the Catholics and Protestants were Jews and Arabs in mandated Palestine,


or Turks and Greeks in colonial Cyprus. The Bill intends to impose upon these rival tribes a sort of Heath Robinson constitution. The Bill treats Ulster as though it were situated in colonial Africa, with tribes that can never trust one another and have to be protected from one another.
It is also patronising and colonial to argue that there must be movement, that the situation cannot remain as it is and that something must be done, even if it is wrong, to humour the agitators out of mischief. I find the sheer condescension of this approach offensive. We should be concerned not to immure Roman Catholics in a political ghetto with their special party and their special, pampered position. Instead, we should enable them to take part freely in the political life of the United Kingdom, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has done with such courage and distinction.
The White Paper remarks that there are those in Northern Ireland who believe themselves to be Irish. There are those on the mainland who are not quite sure whether they are English or British. There are Irish—people who will accept no other nationality than Irish—who are yet loyal to the Crown and faithful to the Union. I believe that the White Paper is on a false point. I recall a lady several years ago in Northern Ireland who said,
The trouble with you English is that you will not allow us Irish to remain British.
I should like to make an appeal for the decolonisation of Northern Ireland under the one Parliament of the United Kingdom and under institutions not be be compared with the Home Counties—it is easy to make ridiculous comparisons—but rather with Scotland, with which the two-way movement of peoples long preceded the plantations.
In his remarkable address, Sir Patrick Macrory commented that
the greater part of the rates paid by the Ulster citizen goes to support the great regional services such as health and education over which democratic control is now non-existent or intolerably remote. It seems to me that the Ulster ratepayer is effectively subject to taxation without representation, which every schoolboy used to be taught was a bad thing.
I recognise that the Secretary of State is trying to deal with this situation through his proposals. I do not however, believe that his method is right. Sir Patrick Macrory says that the first step should be to restore local democratic control of the regional services. He outlines more than one approach.
One possibility would be to revive the former upper tier. I do not know which method would be right. Sir Patrick suggests that the county and county borough councils could be revived or that there could be three regional councils consisting of a metropolitan regional council for greater Belfast, a northern regional council based on Coleraine and a southern council based on Craigavon. The course which he favours is the establishment of a single combined county council for the whole of the province.
It is the message of the White Paper that the Bill is to make a threefold advance in favour of political stability, economic recovery and the defeat of terrorism. I do not believe that the Bill will achieve any of those objects.
5.30
I venture to utter a few words on some of the economic implications. Some of us—my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and others

in the Committee—were present in Belfast at the weekend at a conference of the body known as the Council for the Union. The hon. Gentlemen who are so amiably gossiping on the Opposition Front Bench will be glad to know that the Labour Party was well represented at the conference. Mr. Alan Carr, a former chairman of the Northern Ireland Labour Party, a party which I sometimes think the Labour Party on this side of the water has betrayed, was there.
Mr. Carr said that legislative devolution cannot regenerate the Northern Ireland economy which evolved as part of the United Kingdom economy. He argued that in the past legislative devolution had been detrimental to the Northern Ireland economy. Northern Ireland had missed out on the housing boom. He accused the Labour Government, until the arrival of the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) at the Northern Ireland Office, of economic withdrawal from the Province. He said that that was a process that had been ended but not reversed.
This clause, and the amendments thereto, raise the celebrated West Lothian question. I wish that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who was so eloquent a few minutes ago on another important matter, was still with us. He could give us the benefit of his views on these amendments. He gave his name to the dilemma spoken of by the right hon. Member for Down, South late on the night of Thursday 27 May. It seems that we are driven back upon debates that took place on the Welsh and Scottish devolution Bills.
At that time the Labour Government did not face that dilemma, and this clause does not answer the question of how one may reasonably confer legislative autonomy and withhold financial autonomy. In the case of the old Stormont Parliament, the contradiction was resolved by making the Government of Northern Ireland an echo of its master's voice in Whitehall. Northern Ireland was treated for financial purposes like any other region of the United Kingdom. Thus, in 1973, most of the special forms of economic assistance were replaced by a special grant-in-aid from Westminster. Professor T. Wilson wrote in the Three Banks Review in December 1976, on the subject of development and public finance:
Treasury control was tight, especially for new items of expenditure. It may well have been as tight as Treasury control over the Scottish Office.
This was not financial autonomy.
It was the burden of the discourse of the former chairman of the Northern Ireland Labour Party that Northern Ireland had suffered in economic terms under legislative devolution.
Professor R. J. Lawrence, formerly professor of politics at Queen's university, Belfast said that:
between the wars public provision in general fell below British standards—not because the Ulsterman was conservative, but because his Government was chronically short of money.
Had Northern Ireland been fully integrated with Great Britain, how could Northern Ireland, alone of the regions of the United Kingdom, have been excluded from the energy grid of the United Kingdom? When, for example, the British Gas Corporation came into being, Northern Ireland consumers were not able to share the advantages of the mainland British who were within the system. Legislative freedom was necessarily more apparent than real. Treasury approval was required before grants were enacted at Stormont that differed from those in Great Britain.
In the 1960s Northern Ireland Ministers went out, as United Kingdom Ministers now go out with such energy,


to find investment for Northern Ireland. The strength of those Northern Ireland Ministers was not that they were, as it were, Ministers of a sovereign Government responsible to a sovereign Parliament, or Ministers in a devolved Government possessed of full powers responsible to a Parliament with full financial autonomy, but that they could make the administrative decisions regarding grants for factory space and so on.
One of the most important statements about Northern Ireland in the Kilbrandon report, was:
A separate Northern Ireland legislature would not of course be essential to meet the province's special legislative needs.
Regions of the United Kingdom do not need legislative powers to be different.
We are told that Northern Ireland is different because there is water in between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
When the then Minister of Home Affairs, William Craig, was criticised for closing Royal Ulster Constabulary stations, he explained why this had to be done. He said:
The Treasury curtailed the discretion of Ministers in the expenditure of public moneys and dictated the priorities of expenditure.
Therefore, peace, reconciliation, stability and economic reconstruction do not require the Bill or legislative devolution.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I am following the hon. Gentleman closely, but I remind him that we are discussing who shall exercise the devolved functions. I hope that he will relate that to what he is saying. The hon. Gentleman is becoming rather general in his remarks and is moving away from the point at issue.

Viscount Cranborne: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. In considering the amendment, I see that, under subsection (1)(a) reference is made, as so often in the Bill, to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. Further, as you will have already observed, the long title refers to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. You will appreciate that if we are to make progress and sense in considering the Bill, we shall need to refer to the text of both these Acts.
I am informed, after the recent visit of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) to the Vote Office, that copies of those Acts are not available in the Vote Office. Is it in order for us to continue to consider matters relating to the Bill without having copies of these Acts?

The First Deputy Chairman: There are copies in the Library and in the Lobbies for hon. Members to refer to.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Armstrong.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that it is new information.

Mr. Proctor: I hope that it will help the progress of the Committee if I report that hon. Members can order the relevant Acts if they so wish, but the copies will not be available until mid-morning tomorrow.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am mindful, Mr. Armstrong, of what you have just said. In conclusion, I want to confine myself to who should discharge those functions. We are discussing an important amendment to a crucial clause in a constitutional Bill. At some time in the debate we should hear something from the Opposition. If a constitutional measure of this kind is being discussed,

concerning the functions of government and administration that are to be discharged in Northern Ireland, it should not be conducted by Members of one or two parties, but by the Committee.
I wonder whether that enterprising journalist Mr. Desmond McCarlan was correct when he disclosed in the Belfast Telegraph of 29 March 1982 a controversial and confidential Labour Party paper which contained these words:
We will, therefore, introduce changes in the present system of local government to make it more accountable and democratic. We are thinking, in particular. of changes in the composition of the area boards, which administer the major local government services, such as education, planning and social services".
Mr. McCartan went on to say:
The suggestion is made that the elected element of the area boards should be increased to at least two-thirds, half of whom ought to be existing district councillors and half trade unionists elected to the boards through trade union machinery.
Then, to quote again from the document as it fell into Mr. McCartan's hands:
This will not only make for a fairer and more democratic system, but will also give the people of Northern Ireland the necessary experience of conducting their own affairs.
I do not agree with everything in the document. I do not necessarily agree with the proposal that half the board members should be trade unionists, although one would like trade unionists to be present. However, is this what is in the mind of the Labour Party? I hope that we will hear something from those Labour Members who are with us in Committee. They are not numerous, but they are distinguished, both being on the Front Bench.

Mr. Stanbrook: Those Labour Members who are present today should be interested in this matter and in the proposals in Mr. McCartan's article from which my hon. Friend has just voted. They appear to be a model based upon the Bullock report on industrial democracy. We all know that the Bullock Commission was structured both by its terms of reference and its membership to produce the very result that was embodied in the report. It is important, is it not, that the Labour Party should give serious consideration to the proposal for Northern Ireland? Who knows, it might well be a contribution to a settlement in Northern Ireland which the Labour Party is peculiarly fitted to submit.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We shall not follow that road at this juncture, but will stick to the amendment.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I bow to your advice at once, Mr. Armstrong, and I shall not seek to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook); nor shall I say a word more about the Labour Party, because it can speak for itself. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Will it?"] It can speak for itself. We hope that it will speak for itself, otherwise others will speak for it or about it and what is said may not be correct. I suppose that my quotation is correct, because there has been no dissent from the Opposition Front Bench.
I have spoken about the Labour Party's attitude to the problems confronted in the Bill—

Viscount Cranborne: My hon. Friend has spoken of the Labour Party' s role and its opinions on the Bill. He also drew attention to the Bullock report. If the Bill is successful in what it proposes, will the functions of


management and the role of workers in a company, as foreshadowed by the Bullock report, be devolved as a responsibility to the Assembly under the Bill? Will Parliament at Westminster be able to give its opinions on how those matters should be arranged in Northern Ireland if the Assembly is successful in that field?

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I hope that my hon. Friend will not think me either ignorant or discourteous if I do not respond to that invitation to discuss the Bullock report. We are in Committee and my hon. Friend may catch the eye of the Chair and be able to speak on that matter himself.
I have discussed the Labour Party's position, or the lack of it, and I want to deal with the position of the Conservative and Unionist Party. I shall refrain from quoting the manifesto of the Conservative and Unionist Party, except to say that it has quite a resemblance to the manifesto of the Official Unionist Party. Everybody knows what it says and I do not propose to quote it.
Manifestos are one thing, but in the heat of an election campaign one becomes careful of what is said. It is then that the Conservative Central Office carefully supplies parliamentary candidates with notes and information for guidance. That is the time in the campaign when a candidate must be extremely careful about what he says. Therefore, I have no wish to quote from the manifesto, although I believe what is said in it, but I quote from guidance that was issued in the heat of the election campaign, namely, the daily notes dated 11 April 1979.
It was said there:
A Conservative Government, in consultation with the people and political parties in Northern Ireland, would seek to establish a Regional Council or Councils with control over specifically local matters (such as education, health and social services) which are not at the moment subject to any effective democratic scrutiny, as they are elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We do not believe that a more ambitious scheme to devolve executive and legislative powers to Northern Ireland would be successful in present conditions. In our view,"—
that is the view that the Conservative Party invited its parliamentary candidates to place before the electorate—
the talk of recreating political stability should begin fairly modestly with the establishment of a new framework of local government which the Province has lacked during the last few years.

Mr. John Gorst: I am trying hard to follow what my hon. Friend is saying. I am coming to the conclusion—I hope that he will correct me if I am wrong—that he is trying to argue that because something was said at the last general election we should not now completely and radically change our point of view. If that is the tenor of what he is saying, will he justify that proposition? Surely the Secretary of State has taken the point of view that matters have changed radically since the last general election and that we should therefore be ready to meet those new circumstances. I hope that my hon. Friend will not take a Luddite view of how we should respond when circumstances change. Perhaps he would argue that there has not been any change. Have I misunderstood my hon. Friend?

Sir John Biggs-Davison: There has not been any fundamental change in the conditions and difficulties that confront us in trying to improve democracy in Northern Ireland. I happen to believe in my party's policy as expressed in the manifesto. The daily notes that were

subsequently issued were bang on. I subscribe to the views expressed in them and do not believe that they have been outdated in any way. As long as there are no more interventions, I hope to conclude my speech within two minutes.
However, I shall make one final reference to the daily notes, because there is something very wise and prescient in them. They state:
The next Government will come under considerable pressure"—
hon. Members should note those last two words—
to launch a new, high-powered political initiative on Northern Ireland, with the object of establishing another 'power-sharing' government in the province, which could pave the way for a federal constitution linking Ulster to the Irish Republic … The numerous discussions which we have had with people in all walks of life in the Province have shown that very different views on devolution are strongly held by local politicians. That is not merely our view: it is also shared by Mr. Roy Mason, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Labour Party's Manifesto states that 'for the present, direct rule remains the only viable alternative … We will work to make it more accountable and democratic'.
I wonder in what respect circumstances have changed since then.
The notes continue:
This objective is also shared by the Conservative Party, which has outlined its plans to established one or more regional councils which will involve all sections of the population, regardless of their political outlook, more closely in the running of local affairs.".
It is upon the principles and policy of the Conservative and Unionist Party that most Conservative Members take their stand.

Mr. Molyneaux: It may be appropriate to remind the Committee of the words used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on 27 May when he moved the amendment. If the amendments are adopted—we hope that they will be, as they should be acceptable to all reasonable men and women—paragraph (a) will read:
proposals for the resumption by persons responsible to the Assembly of all the functions".
Administrative devolution would make it possible for the Assembly to do something very useful from day 1. However, if the Bill remains unamended, that will not be possible. If the amendments are carried, the Assembly will be able to assume, from day 1, high level control over those areas of local government that are now running wild and that are not answerable to any elected representatives.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 do not seek to downgrade the rather improbable structure proposed in the Bill. Indeed, they should have the opposite effect. They will ensure that from its inception, the Assembly has a real job to do. If the Assembly is to progress it is essential that it should have a job to do and that those elected to do it should recognise that. It is also vital that those who elect its Members should be able to recognise that the goods are being delivered and that grievances are being redressed. Nothing is more likely to create disillusionment and internal bickering within the Assembly than a group of 78—or, according to the Boundary Commission's report perhaps 85—well-paid elected representatives being told that not only do they not have that responsibility but that there is no intention of giving them any power unless they agree to something that would obviously make the whole structure unworkable.
On 27 May my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South cited the Minister's political philosophy. In


their innocence some hon. Members find it difficult to believe that there is a sinister motive behind all this. However, that sinister motive has led successive Ministers to shy away from the various suggestions designed to achieve the same effect as our amendments. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) has done the Committee and the nation a service. He has quoted from directives, instructions and information that were probably confidential at the time, and has drawn attention to the forecasts made in the daily notes, issued by the Conservative Party during the election campaign. It was forecast that determined attempts would be made to turn an incoming Conservative Government away from their policies.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: By whom?

Mr. Molyneaux: I may be able to provide some illumination. I remember discussing matters with the late Airey Neave and saying to him in a jocular fashion, " I hear reports that the Northern Ireland Office is busily engaged in preparing some light reading for you when you take over." He said that he had also heard such rumours and asked me what direction I thought was being taken. I said "I have not had a preview, but I have certain ways of finding out. The one thing that you will find in that document when you reach Stormont castle after the general election is that there will be 1,001 reasons why you should not do what the manifesto said you would do." When Airey Neave's place was taken after his lamentable and much regretted murder, it may not have been surprising that all that seems to have come true. I have often reflected on that conversation, on what might have happened and on how successful the saboteurs in the Northern Ireland office would have been if the late Airey Neave had succeeded to his office in Stormont castle.
Those in the grip of that influence and those who prepared the briefing documents—not the Conservative documents—knew very well that any Assembly or regional council with powers over administration and top level local government would provide no scope for the involvement of the Irish Republic. Consequently, there could be no scope for interference in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom. It would not have provided any scope for manipulating representation in an inter-parliamentary body that was soon to become a council of Ireland.
On 27 May my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South, reiterated his views on legislative devolution. In a sense, he may have pre-empted the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). The Bill gives us the worst of both worlds. It holds out the bogus hope of legislative devolution. We all know that it cannot be achieved as the Bill stands, because of the impossible restrictions placed on any progress. However, because it makes that pretence, it calls into question the right to equal representation in the House. The Secretary of State has already recognised that fact. He has said that in the unlikely event—he did not use those words—of legislative devolution being achieved, not because of the Bill but in spite of it, that that will be the time when the House will need to look again at the parliamentary representation of Northern Ireland in the House.
6 pm
It could be said that we are paying the price for legislative devolution, but being denied its substance and

reality. The Bill unfortunately denies us administrative devolution. Our amendments are designed to remedy that defect and fill the yawning gap that the hon. Member for Epping Forest has so clearly described.
This morning I had a graphic illustration of the effect of that vacuum on one of my constituents. She was being flooded out by a fractured water main. She approached three separate authorities. Before 1973 those authorities would have been ender the local authority. They all came and looked longingly at the flood water and agreed that something should be done but that it was the job of the other. We then had the ludicrous position that, as the President of the United States of America was arriving to address Members of both Houses of Parliament, I had to telephone the Minister in Belfast. I pay tribute to his courtesy and efficiency, but it is nonsense that such a problem was incapable of being resolved by an administrative officer at the local authority headquarters.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest has taken us back to the Conservative Party manifesto position. I want to go back just a little further.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I have followed my hon. Friend's description of himself and his constituent with the sympathy of one of those who have had similar experiences. Will he point out that exactly the same would apply under the realisation of full devolution as it stands in the Bill? It would still be the responsibility of a Stormont Department to deal with that matter. There would be no question, under the Bill, of its being dealt with by anything more local than at present. The only difference might be that the telephone call would possibly come from Stormont and not Westminster. The organisation, the chain of responsibility and the remoteness would be identical.

Mr. Molyneaux: I agree with my right hon. Friend. We might be less at the mercy of British Telecom and get the telephone call just a little earlier because we would be at an adjacent exchange. It would still have to be dealt with by a Minister of the Crown and not a local authority official.
I have to exonerate the present and previous Governments from blame for that state of affairs. The Stormont Government and Parliament designed this utterly crazy, unacceptable system. My complaint is that having the wealth of experience in central and local Government in Great Britain the present and previous Governments have identified the weakness—we know that from their honest confession—but they have not taken a grip of those who would be capable of implementing the decisions and forcing through what they know to be the only workable scheme to remedy the position to which I have drawn attention.
In case someone should say that the valuable guidance given in the daily notes of Conservative Central Office were inspired by some comparatively lowly officials and did not have the authority of the Conservative Shadow Cabinet, I quote from a speech by the then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister, in Belfast on 19 June 1978. It is relevant to the essence of our amendments. It was less than a year before she became Prime Minister. She said—the first line is revealing—
With my full agreement and that of his colleagues, Airey Neave has been talking of our plans to restore the upper tier of local government which was removed in October 1973. Ulster is the only part of the United Kingdom where regional services


are not under the control of the locally elected representatives. We shall therefore seek to establish one or more directly elected Northern Ireland Regional Councils. These would have a wide range of powers, such as those which local authorities have in other parts of the United Kingdom. Local councillors would thus be able to perform the same role in Northern Ireland as they do elsewhere. They would also exercise control"—
"control" is the word—
over the area boards. There will be scope"—
that is important—
for all political parties to participate in these new instructions.
The right hon. Lady then went on to deal with a subject that was dear to her heart:
Education is one of those responsibilities which we want to see back in the hands of locally elected representatives. The Government seem convinced"—
that was the former Government—
that the people of Northern Ireland ought to welcome their efforts to impose a universal comprehensive system of secondary education on the Province. Many of the parents of Ulster's schoolchildren have different ideas, and have formed the Ulster Parents' Union. We agree with them when they reject the Government's argument that a universal comprehensive system should replace the excellent grammar schools of this Province. We shall put these questions in the hands of Regional Councillors and let the people decide through their elected representatives.
I notice that the Secretary of State was paying attention, particularly when I read that first line. I shall read it again:
With my full agreement and that of his colleagues, Airey Neave has been talking of our plans".
The Secretary of State was a senior member of that Shadow Cabinet so the plan, the daily notes and the Conservative manifesto position were designed apparently with the agreement of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Gorst: May I ask the hon. Gentleman the question that I put to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), which he rather cursorily answered? I did not get a satisfactory explanation from him. I wonder whether I can get a more satisfactory explanation from the hon. Gentleman. Have things changed in the three years since my right hon. Friend made those remarks before the general election or does the hon. Gentleman take the same view as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest that nothing has changed? If that promise was made in 1979 should it not prevail? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is aware of changes in Northern Ireland which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has noted, but which have escaped some of us?

Mr. Molyneaux: I shall endeavour to give the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) a courteous answer. Things have changed to a great extent in one direction. As a result of the exasperation that people have experienced since the general election of 1979 there is now a far greater demand for the restoration of real local government such as was set out in the Conservative Party manifesto and the speech of the right hon. Lady and of the hon. Member for Epping Forest. That makes it even less defensible for the Government to stall any longer before implementing something of which they were clearly convinced in 1979.
I wish to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to clear himself of the allegation implicit in what the hon. Member for Epping Forest said. The hon. Gentleman did not mean to make the allegation. I am sure that he was not singling out his right hon. Friend. But there may be a suspicion that the brief design to counter the Conservative daily notes has influenced his thinking. In 1979 the present

Prime Minister said that the right hon. Gentleman had given his full agreement to the plan to restore real local government to Northern Ireland. At what point did he change his mind and why?

Mr. Barry Porter: Were we not told by the Government on Second Reading and in the White Paper debate that no one of consequence in Northern Ireland wanted a local government structure?

Mr. Molyneaux: We have been told many curious things. I do not know where that information came from or on what it was based.
As I said in an intervention, again and again councillors apologise for writing to me about a planning problem and ask whether we can do something at Westminster to give them back the power for them to exercise it at first hand without having to ask us. That feeling runs throughout local government. It is the feeling of councillors almost to a man. Foremost in the demand for real power are the SDLP councillors, although its top brass have different things in mind. Unlike their councillor colleagues, their allegiance is not to the structure headed by the Secretary of State, but to that which exists in the other capital south of the border. It is scarcely surprising that they do not listen to what the councillors advocate.
It is alleged that when the Prime Minister made the ringing declaration she had in mind to fob us off with nothing better than upper tier local government. But I do not believe that she regarded it as a final stopping point. She expected that upper tier—the regional council—to have the function of restoring to the people of Northern Ireland more control over their own affairs as a first step. Being a prudent stateswoman she would look carefully at how the first step functioned before going further. It is a misrepresentation to suggest that administrative devolution in the form of a regional council and the restoration of local powers was the end of the Shadow Cabinet thinking.
If the Government are sincere in their desire, as the Secretary of State said in introducing the White Paper and on Second Reading, to provide better government for the people of Northern Ireland, they are not doing so in the Bill. The Gracious Speech at the beginning of the first Session of this Parliament stated that their aim was
to give to the people of Northern Ireland more control over their own affairs.
What the Bill proposes cannot be regarded as that by any stretch of the imagination. It merely affords the ability to chat and gossip about such affairs. If the Government are sincere in their aim the Secretary of State should invite the Committee to reflect on the suggestions made when the amendment was moved on 27 May and the further points made today, and, after mature consideration, reach a conclusion.
Together with the Government we shall do our best to erect a durable structure to do what the Bill manifestly fails to do—to give the people of Northern Ireland control and a mechanism to redress their grievances and to fill the only vacuum that exists in Northern Ireland as a result of the ill-advised removal of real powers from local government in 1973.

Mr. Stanbrook: The quotations which we have heard demonstrate again what a catastrophe it was for the Conservative Party, Northern Ireland and the United


Kingdom as a whole when Airey Neave was assassinated. He had prepared himself for the office of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and reached the conclusion that what was needed was an upper tier in Northern Ireland. It was sad for us all that he was removed by an assassin and in his place was appointed someone who had not so prepared himself and who did not carry on the policy which he had advocated in the Shadow Cabinet and which had been approved, as shown by the quotations. It is a great shame that the Conservative Government did not stick to the promises made and the policy worked out so thoroughly by the man who was given the responsibility to do so.
I am at a loss to know why we abandoned the policy. That has never been satisfactorily explained. I am sure that it is not a question of personalities. It is not for want of courage. There is plenty of that in the present Administration. But there is no intellectual argument for abandoning the policy. It remains a great mystery to me.

Mr. Gorst: My hon. Friend is prejudging the conclusion. He assumes that the proposals will go through as they are. When we have discussed them fully they may not appear on the statute book in their present form. He should be a little less gloomy.

Mr. Stanbrook: My hon. Friend gives me hope that the House will not endorse the proposals.

Mr. Gorst: My hon. Friend should not be defeatist.

Mr. Stanbrook: I am not being defeatist, but I must be accurate. The Conservative Party evolved the policy; the Conservative Government did not implement it. The House has not pronounced on change. We may both be right. Parliament has not changed its policy. The policy that was put before Parliament by the Conservative Party before the general election is still the right one and I hope that Parliament will adopt it.
The amendment has one great merit in that it makes a clear distinction between legislative and executive devolution. Thus it shows at once the fundamental flaw in the Government's approach to the problem of constitutional reform for Northern Ireland. Devolution has been going on in the United Kingdom for decades. It is inherent in local government where powers are transferred to statutory bodies. A Secretary of State for Scotland and, more recently, a Secretary of State for Wales were appointed to take over powers for those parts of Britain that were previously exercised by the Government.
Executive devolution is the method by which Parliament has resolved the inherent contradictions, anomalies and differences between one part of the United Kingdom and another or decided that the characteristics and requirements of one region needed different treatment from that accorded to another. That is perfectly healthy, sensible and democratic.
However, legislative devolution, which is separate lawmaking institutions to the exclusion of the United Kingdom Parliament, is quite different and there is not sufficient support to justify taking that step. The only instance of legislative devolution was the so-called Stormont system in Northern Ireland which lasted for about 51 years but which was ill-fated. That appears to have been the accepted opinion of the majority of those who were concerned about the matter when, in 1972, we passed legislation to dissolve that system.
Now the Government disregard our experience of legislative devolution, the wishes of the people of

Northern Ireland and the opinions of the majority of their supporters in the previous Parliament, when we were so triumphantly successful in showing by argument, if not by numbers in the Division Lobbies, that the system was impossible. Despite that, my Government, of which I am so proud in every other respect, are intent and insist on going through the process again—a process that owes its origin not to their thought, experience and principles but to those of their erstwhile opponents. They do so on the grounds that they have made adjustments which make the system more plausible.
I cannot believe in the reason given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for introducing the notion once again into British political life. His main argument is that legislative devolution, in the form in which it is proposed in the White Paper and the Bill, is the only way to achieve political stability in Northern Ireland. In fact, it is a recipe for instability. Another reason given is that the proposals are necessary for Northern Ireland, even if we accept that the proposals for Scotland and Wales were wrong and should have been opposed, because Northern Ireland is different or special. I have tried to think of the ways in which Northern Ireland is different or special so as to justify such a different constitutional provision and structure. It is different in the sense that there is a campaign of violence that has claimed many lives and has continued for many years.

Mr. Porter: I do not have the advantage of having been a Member when the matter was argued in the previous Parliament, but I assume that devolution arguments 'were put forward and the same points were argued. I do not wish to pre-empt my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), but perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington can tell us what, in his view, has changed fundamentally since the previous debate.

Mr. Stanbrook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of the point, but if he had been here in the previous Parliament he would have heard Northern Ireland being treated as a special case because conditions there were enough to justify different treatment. It was not thought at the time of those devolution debates, at least not by the Labour Party when in power, that Northern Ireland should be an example of how to give devolution to the rest of the United Kingdom. It was not quoted as a good example but it was considered to be special. The proposal that Northern Ireland was different was at once flattering and confusing to those of us who tried to understand what was going on in Northern Ireland politics.
Another feature of Northern Ireland's political life is the fact that a neighbouring State claims it as part of its territory. That is special and different, but does it justify different constitutional treatment or is different constitutional treatment some concession towards the territorial claim?

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Might it not be that the threat posed by the perverse constitution of the neighbouring State suggests that we should try with every constitutional means to bind Northern Ireland closer to us in accordance with the wishes of its people?

Mr. Stanbrook: My hon. Friend is right. We should not have any truck with or show favour towards a State that makes territorial demands upon the United Kingdom until it drops those demands and resolves to pursue its own way


in peace with us, without thereby encouraging those who wish to translate the claim made in its constitution by violence into reality. That by itself cannot justify a special constitutional provision for Northern Ireland separate and different from that of the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Is it not also a difference that various methods have been tried, which have all failed, to set up an Assembly or a meeting of some sort?

Mr. Stanbrook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is the lesson of our experience of recent years. Successive Governments of the United Kingdom have attempted solutions other than the outright common sense solution of treating Northern Ireland as just another region of the United Kingdom in every constitutional sense.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting to the Committee that the Convention failed? Was it not a failure of the House not even to discuss the Convention report, either the report of its majority or the report of its minority? Surely he could not say that everything that was set up failed because the Convention did its work and submitted to the House proposals which were not even discussed but were put under the carpet.

Mr. Stanbrook: I have much sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. If it is not right to say that the Convention failed, it would be right to say that the initiative which prompted the Convention failed because its proposals were not adopted in the end and we were back to square one, as we had been with previous initiatives.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does not my hon. Friend recall that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has said, there was a debate in the House on the Convention report? I remember speaking from where the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) is now sitting, on the Opposition Front Bench. What was clear was that there would be no acceptance of any form of legislative devolution that was acceptable to the Unionist parties. To that extent, the hon. Member for Antrim, North has his complaint. Any form of legislative devolution acceptable to him will not be accepted by any Government that we can expect to be in office.

Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. Would it be possible to have clarification on that last point? As I understand it, the House debated the matter in an Adjournment debate. My information is that even the Minister concerned had not read the Convention report at that time. I know that it had not been distributed to the Opposition, so how could hon. Members have debated the report? They were discussing the matter in an Adjournment debate rather than dealing with the report.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Paul Dean): I am afraid I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. It is not a point for the Chair. I suggest that we return to the amendment.

Mr. Stanbrook: If I may respectfully do so, Mr. Dean, I should like to congratulate you as a new Deputy

Chairman of Ways and Means. We welcome you to your new post and wish you much happiness and fulfilment in your position.
Wishing to keep in order, as I always do, I think we have had enough about the Convention—

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is not fair for the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) to tell the Committee that we had a full-scale debate on the Convention report.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I did not say that; I said a debate.

Rev. Ian Paisley: A statement was made and a few questions were asked. The House was told, not, as the hon. Gentleman has implied, that my type of legislative devolution was rejected, but that the type of legislative devolution agreed by the majority of the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland was rejected.

Mr. Stanbrook: There is no doubt that the Convention did not succeed in its purpose and has gone the way of so many previous political initiatives. The fewer political initiatives we have about Northern Ireland, the better for Northern Ireland and for ourselves.
I want to get back to the reasons why this apparently so un-Conservative notion of devolution should be applied to Northern Ireland. One reason given recently by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, Lord Gowrie was—I shall paraphrase what he said—that it was to form different relationships between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. In other words, the proposals are not for the sake of devolution as a constitutional principle, but for the sake of some sort of accommodation with the Irish Republic. When they are expressed in that way, one can condemn the proposals straight away and out of hand, given the more recent history of the Irish Republic in regard to this country and the hostility that it has displayed towards us for so long, including the provision within its constitution claiming Northern Ireland as a part of its territory.
The interesting thing is that the noble Lord is himself a citizen of the Irish Republic and so presumably has dual citizenship. As a constitutional lawyer I find that something of a mystery because no man can serve two masters, especially if he is a Minister to one. An oath of allegiance to Her Majesty was needed presumably when the noble Lord undertook his present office. That oath of allegiance was to Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom, yet he apparently holds a passport of the Irish Republic which implies that he applied for that passport and that he owes allegiance to the Irish Republic. Presumably the passport would not have been issued to him without an application.
We all know that the Irish Republic confers Irish citizenship, whatever that may mean, upon all those born in the island of Ireland ipso facto. That is why some people whom we normally regard as British citizens travel around with passports issued by the Irish Republic. For a Minister of the Crown to owe allegiance to a State that claims part of Her Majesty's territory seems inconsistent with his constitutional and personal duties and personal allegiance.

Mr. Gorst: Do I understand my hon. Friend correctly? What he is suggesting is that the noble Lord is acting under some terrible imperative that is dragging him towards the re-unification of the North and South of Ireland and is at the same time a Minister of the Crown. Is this what my hon. Friend was arguing?

Mr. Stanbrook: No, I am not necessarily arguing that. I am just pointing out that duality of nationality implies duality of allegiance. Therefore, expressions of opinion from someone who acknowledges two sovereigns and pays allegiance to two sovereigns—

Mr. Budgen: How can one have dual allegiance?

Mr. Stanbrook: My hon. Friend asks how one can have dual allegiance. I accept that it is constitutionally improper if not impossible. But it must necessarily make us wonder about the value of the opinion of such a person when dealing with matters of this kind when he holds a ministry of this country in relation to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Farr: Has my hon. Friend thought that the noble Lord may possibly owe an allegiance similar to the allegiance that a person can owe both to a mother and to a wife? He might in some way be able to run the allegiances in tandem.

Mr. Stanbrook: I am a lawyer and I cannot accept the concept of allegiance that my hon. Friend has put forward. In my opinion allegiance should be single, undivided and exclusive to the sovereign.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Would it be of help to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) to be reminded of what the noble Lord said, which was reported in the Belfast Telegraph on 13 January 1982? That is quite recently; that is in modern times. He said:
I suppose that if I had my way I would have dual citizenship.
He means not that he personally would but that he would have that institution in Northern Ireland. He continued:
Why not have people living in the North who regard themselves as Irish, administered by Ireland and Britain?
So that is an indication of the area of and dimensions of the thought and the dimensions of the noble Lord.

Mr. Stanbrook: Yes. I agree that that opens up further ideas. Of course, I may be wrong in thinking that the noble Lord is a citizen of the Irish Republic.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: He is.

Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that this will be raised in the no doubt protracted discussion of the matter in the Upper House? Their Lordships will not wish to be thought of as the mere poodles of the Tory Party and will wish to allow the noble Lord plenty of opportunity to explain his philosophy on the matter.

Mr. Stanbrook: I shall not pursue that. I simply find it incompatible, in view of his duties, for a Minister of the Crown to owe allegiance to a foreign sovereign, which is what it must be in this case.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that matter caused great anger in Northern Ireland, when so-called Ministers of the Crown in the power-sharing Executive, travelling on the business of the Crown, did so on Republican passports and refused to acknowledge in any way that they were British subjects? It made the people of Northern Ireland very angry.

Mr. Stanbrook: I think that I should get on, because I am coming to my main argument, which is that legislative devolution is incompatible with the unity of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made that point in moving the amendment, and it is fundamental to how I believe the Conservative

Party should approach the whole question, because it substitutes within the United Kingdom a different supreme authority from that of the United Kingdom Parliament. It is, therefore, a fundamental flaw and weakness.
Secondly, it weakens Parliament by taking away from its Members for the region concerned the power to examine, investigate, criticise, encourage and warn the Ministers responsible for the administration of that region. The justification so often given in this place by ministers for proposals of this kind is that fuller democracy should be available for the people of Northern Ireland.
Here we come to another problem. If the people of Northern Ireland do not have full democracy, whose fault is it but that of the United Kingdom Parliament, which has left a void in the upper tier of local government there? What simpler method of restoring full democracy—by which I simply mean the sort of democracy enjoyed by people in the rest of the United Kingdom—could there be than the reinstitution of an upper tier of local government in Northern Ireland? It is as simple as that. cannot understand how it can be argued that fuller democracy or greater democratic rights for the people of Northern Ireland should be considered in any other light, but in this case it is proposed to give powers to one set of locally-elected politicians—those in any Assembly created in Northern Ireland—so that another set of politicians at a higher level—in this place—should be deprived of powers in respect of the region which they represent.
I am amazed to hear Ministers claim that their proposals will strengthen democracy in Northern Ireland, because the only limitation on democracy in Northern Ireland is the absence of full local government. As we have already been told today, Ministers simply refuse to replace the full local government structure to which Northern Ireland would be entitled if it were treated like the rest of the United Kingdom.
Then there is the justification on the ground of political stability. Is there any evidence that a devolved legislature in Northern Ireland will increase political stability? We know that the violence will not cease. The Republic of Ireland will still claim United Kingdom territory in Northern Ireland. It will provide the foundation for discontent, and continue to pursue its campaign of hostility towards us at all levels. Sectarian differences and religious prejudices, instead of being mitigated by absorption within the United Kingdom as a whole and spread over the genial and tolerant atmosphere of the United Kingdom generally, will be magnified and exaggerated within a small enclosed parochial atmosphere, such as is proposed for the Assembly of Northern Ireland. The free political atmosphere of this House of Commons, where virtually no one bothers to think of an hon. Member's religion or church in weighing the value of his opinions, will be replaced by one of claustrophobia in which—for many people—nothing will be discussed on its merits and everything will be coloured by religious affiliations.
6.45 pm
It is useless to say now that legislative devolution as it previously existed in Northern Ireland was a model which could be followed, or to say that appropriate modifications could be made acceptable. That previous experiment was Stormont, the system supposedly hated by a minority in Northern Ireland, and it came crashing down in ruins under the very pressures of sectarian violence which we have all been trying to cure.
It is unlikely that any modification of the Stormont system would be acceptable to either side—if we have to think all the time in terms of either side in Northern Ireland. The White Paper sometimes speaks of the two communities of Northern Ireland. At other times it speaks of the two sides of the community in Northern Ireland. We all know what that means. It means that those who framed the White Paper have the idea of a division institutionalised in their minds. That institutionalising has led to the proposals that are designed to encapsulate all the problems of Northern Ireland within Northern Ireland, in a separate system for Northern Ireland, not allowing the free tolerant air of the United Kingdom to work its healing magic on religious prejudices. Nor is the system likely to work. Legislative devolution will not work anywhere in the United Kingdom, least of all where passions are so inflamed. It is beyond belief that legislative devolution, which has been so heartily rejected by the Conservative Party in the past, should be brought out again as a means of settling this apparently intractable problem.
The effect of the clause is to offer Northern Ireland both legislative and executive devolution—both or neither, but without the choice of one or the other alone. If passed into law, it would make some Members of Parliament second-class Members of Parliament, able to vote and decide matters everywhere in the United Kingdom except in their own part.
That leads me to say something that I have wanted to say for many months. In my view, we should all pay tribute to the quality of the representation in this House of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, who take up their duties here as Members of Parliament from all parties. They do so under considerations of risk of personal danger and of pressures quite unknown to the rest of us. Their constituencies are on average far larger than those of hon. Members in the rest of the United Kingdom. They nevertheless carry out their parliamentary duties supremely well, articulating strongly and effectively the causes of those whom they represent. The whole House is in debt to them for the courage and devotion to duty that they display.
If Northern Ireland under present conditions can produce parliamentary representatives as good as these, why should we even consider a system which will have the effect of downgrading them? We have been advised by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) that local Government is a means of satisfying the legitimate aspirations of the people of Northern Ireland, but that it is thought by some that the reinstitution of an upper tier of local government will be resisted so strongly by the so-called minority that it is not acceptable. When the suggestion is put to Ministers they say straight away that one cannot have a system of local government at that level because it would be given by sectarian and religious differences and all such prejudices would work themselves out in the way of discrimination. Yet, while Ministers are not prepared to implement the Conservative Party's original proposals for Northern Ireland, they are prepared to create an institution that would do just that at legislative level. Why on earth are they magnifying the problems that might arise from any Assembly devoted to local government questions?
We have to start from ground level. We have to build up confidence. As far as possible, personal contact

between parliamentary representatives, local government councillors and parish councillors with their people is the healthy way in which ideas are canvassed in this country and in which legislators are kept on course in accordance with the view of their constituents.
Local government is therefore an essential part of the constitutional structure of any democratic country, not least in Northern Ireland. We need more democracy in Northern Ireland, but we need it in that gap which this Parliament has left for far too long—the gap between the existing district councils and the United Kingdom Parliament. Elsewhere that gap is filled by an upper tier of local government—county councils in England, regional councils in Scotland. Why on earth cannot we fill the gap in the same way in Northern Ireland? Why do we need to go through this terrible exercise all over again knowing full well in our hearts that it commands acceptance neither with us nor with the people of Northern Ireland?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) concerning your election to your office, Mr. Dean, and to wish you well. No doubt you will have plenty of time during the passage of this Bill to exercise your patience and leniency.
The hon. Member for Orpington rightly said that in moving the amendment the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made it clear that legislative devolution is what the amendments are meant to destroy. Speaking yesterday in Belfast, the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of the Official Unionist Party, made it clear that his aim was the restoration of a Stormont system of government with the same scope and powers as the pre-1972 institution. He went on to say that he recalled saying in September 1979 that his party totally endorsed the proposals in the report on the constitutional Convention and would resist any attempt to weaken them. He said:
That was three years ago, and I have to say I have no reason to believe that members of my party or the Ulster Unionist Council have in any way changed their minds over the last three years.
Anyone who is aware of what Stormont was about will be aware that the keystone of the Stormont devolution was legislative devolution. There is no doubt about that. When the Official Unionists refused to attend the Atkins conference they submitted to Her Majesty's Government a paper entitled "The Government of Northern Ireland—presented to the Prime Minister by the Ulster Unionist Council January 1980". It said:
The Ulster Unionist Party believes that Northern Ireland should be administered by an elected body empowered to legislate and govern and be known as the Parliament and Government of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Molyneaux: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to confirm that the quotations that he has read represent and have for eight years represented the policy of my party. I am also happy that he has given me the opportunity to say that he and others in the then United Ulster Unionist coalition delegated me to make the opening speech presenting the report of the constitutional Convention in a debate which he said earlier, by a slip of the tongue or a slip of the memory, did not take place.

Rev. Iam Paisley: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has made clear that his party stands for


legislative devolution for Northern Ireland because the amendments in his name which were moved by the right hon. Member for Down, South on 27 May concerned legislative devolution. Five times in his speech the right hon. Gentleman referred to it. He referred to
the incompatibility of legislative devolution with the unity of the United Kingdom.
He went on to say:
It is the unanswerability which was teased out and proved time and time again in the debates on the Scotland bill that constitutes the ultimate incompatibility between legislative devolution and membership of a unitary parliamentary State such as the United Kingdom.
Later he said:
Legislative devolution is thus the beginning of separation, and legislative devolution to a Province that is henceforward to be fully represented in the United Kingdom is the more clearly the beginning of separation.
He went on to say that
ultimately legislative devolution is incompatible with the Union … The reason for that was that it was realised that legislative separation means political separation, means separation.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the real reason for moving the amendment was to enable the Committee to knock out the cornerstone of any meaningful devolution, and meaningful devolution must mean legislative devolution. I remind the Committee that that was the cornerstone of the Stormont Administration. It came as no surprise when the right hon. Gentleman had to attack the very foundation of the Stormont system. He said:
It was just possible, though it was part of the corrupt and slothful bargain by which the House disinterested itself for 50 years in the affairs of Northern Ireland".—[Official Report,27 May 1982; Vol. 24, c. 1146–48.]
According to the right hon. Gentleman, the Stormont Administration came about as a result of a "corrupt and slothful bargain". All who sat in the old Stormont Parliament will know that that was exactly the thesis of every republican in the House. They argued that there was a corrupt and slothful bargain between the Unionist leaders of the day and the Westminster Parliament, and that as a result we had the Stormont Administration.
We cannot have it both ways. We cannot say in Belfast "We stand for legislative devolution" but say in the House of Commons "The only vacuum in Northern Ireland is that of a second tier of local government."

7 pm

Mr. Julian Amery: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why Carson, the founder of Ulster in its present form, was so deeply opposed to the creation of Stormont? Carson wanted full integration and so, I think, did Craig. Why did these great men, who played such an important part in the foundation of Ulster, take such a different view from the devolutionist view that is sometimes argued?

Rev. Ian Paisley: If the right hon. Gentleman reads Ulster history, he will discover that Lord Carson formed a provisional Government of Northern Ireland and took over the running of Northern Ireland under his own wing and authority in defiance of the House of Commons. Indeed, he said in the Chamber "Arrest me if you dare." Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman should know that Lord Carson's aim was to see the whole of Ireland within the Union. Lord Carson was not an Ulster Unionist. For want of a better term, he was a southern Irish Unionist, although he led the Ulster Unionist people. He felt betrayed when his Unionist Party sacrificed the great aim of the party to

see all Ireland within the Union. It is not right to suggest that Lord Craigavon was not a supporter of the Stormont Administration. He took the Premiership of that Administration and was its first distinguished Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman should read again the facts of Ulster history.
The philosophy of Unionism was to remain itself under the Act of Union. That Act was a legislative union with this House of Commons. That is what Unionists fought for, but the battle was lost. As a result, Northern Ireland had to accept what was given to it by the House of Commons. However, before it accepted that it had already made provision for a provisional Government in Northern Ireland. I hope that those remarks will be helpful to the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). I know of his interest in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the hon. Gentleman go slightly further in his explanation and tell the Committee that a provisional Government was formed in the event of the House of Commons voting Northern Ireland outside the Union into the Republic of Ireland or Eire, as it was then called? The Ulster people were determined that it would not go that way.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will not be tempted to go down that. road. We are straying rather far from the amendment.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The provisional Government had already been set up and it was effective. It had an army of many thousands to put into effect its laws and regulations and to keep the Province outside the powers of the IRA and the Republic.
The hon. Member for Orpington talked about a second tier of local government. He fails to understand that the entire Macrory report was based on a Stormont—24 regional councils, the boards and Stormont both administrative and legislative. In Northern Ireland we do not need to regain some tier of local government. We need the tier that is missing from the Macrory report, and that is the Stormont system, which would involve administrative and legislative devolution.
In Northern Ireland we have local government and we have boards but we have no administrative or legislative Stormont on to which they can hang. That is the vacuum. That is the problem to which the Committee should address itself. If we go ahead and introduce the Stormont administration that was envisaged in the Macrory report, the system will be completed.

Mr. Stanbrook: I am trying to follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. The new Assembly could fulfil the local government function which was envisaged in the Macrory report. It is not necessary for it to have a legislative function.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, but the Macrory report emphasised that there would need to be both executive and legislative power. Northern Ireland cannot be governed properly from the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Antrim, South has talked about the problems that arise from a broken water main. That is an example of the impossibility of governing Northern Ireland properly from the House of Commons.
Most of those who are participants in the debate are against legislative devolution. They are against it for


Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They have a right to express their views and their views are interesting. However, we are discussing legislation. We usually discuss it after midnight. We discuss Orders in Council, which we cannot amend: we can vote either for them or against them. Even if all the 12 Northern Ireland Members agree—one of them does not come to this place—they cannot have any influence on legislation. What can 12, or 17, Northern Ireland Members do to influence legislation in this place?
The hon. Member for Orpington spoke of the high calibre of Northern Ireland Members. It would be wrong for the House of Commons to say "We can find 17 Members but we shall not be able to find 85 suitable Assembly Members for Northern Ireland". The 85 will have to be as good as the present 12 if they are properly to carry out their work in Northern Ireland. In that regard, the hon. Gentleman is not arguing logically. If the people of Northern Ireland are fit, according to this House, to have a second tier of local government, they are just as fit to deal with the legislation that is necessary for the good government of Northern Ireland.
I have made it clear before, and I shall make it clear again, that I accept the first part of the present proposal. We need an election and we need an Assembly. There are matters in Northern Ireland now that cannot be discussed adequately in this House. We cannot obtain the necessary input to the Government on such matters. Education is one example. It is important. We have not been able to get the necessary input when there has been a major proposal to merge one of our universities with a polytechnic. Agriculture, our most important industry, is another example. Planning and social services are others. Individuals in Northern Ireland are deeply interested in them. The only way that we can obtain the proper representation to the Government is by having an elected Assembly that will be able to put its views forcefully to Ministers on such matters.

Mr. Proctor: The hon. Gentleman is asking that those people who do not have a say and do not discuss the matter should be able to change the law with regard to that matter. He has not argued his case on that line.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman must give me time. I am talking about the first part of the proposal. I welcome it because direct rule in Northern Ireland is unbridled. There is little accountability, right from the Secretary of State to his officers in Northern Ireland, to the House. There is not one Northern Ireland Member on the Public Accounts Committee where he could deal with matters of which he has knowledge. I accept that members of the Public Accounts Committee ask Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, and rightly so, about various matters. But, as far as the House is concerned, we do not have that privilege and direct rule has been unbridled. It should be bridled and the suggested Scrutiny Committees have a good purpose in that respect. After all, they were suggested in the Convention report. They could do a good job.
With regard to the legislative part, I have made it clear, both in my speech in the debate on the White Paper and on Second Reading, that I am opposed to the mechanisms that are written into the Bill about how one gets power back, because they stand democracy on its head.

Moreover, they insult the loyal people. The hon. Member for Orpington talked about people who want to stay with Great Britain and remain British. They are told that if they can manage 70 per cent. the House of Commons will discuss whether they are fit to have certain powers. But if one is not loyal, if one carries a Republican passport and can get 50 per cent. plus one, there is a possibility of one getting power. That is what is so repugnant to the people of Northern Ireland. There should be one basis for the bringing back of power to Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) said that there will never be legislative devolution on the terms on which people want it. I do not know what the House will do. Will it soldier on, year after year, with the problem that it now has, or will it face the issue and say "Look, the people of Northern Ireland have voted in a certain way"? I remind the House that every effort was made to change that.
The leader of the Official Unionist Party tells us that a Northern Ireland official is planning his political demise so that when he is got rid of the Northern Ireland Office can in some way get the Unionist party to go down its road. I do not know whether that is so. Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us about the official who has sharpened his knife and is ready to use it on the hon. Member for Antrim, South.
I do not know what plans are laid for my early demise. If I were removed my party would carry on in the same way. It would be necessary to take the heads of the whole lot of them. I opposed power sharing. I was a member of the old Assembly. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. McQuade) was carried out—so was I. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) was also carried out of that House. We were opposed to power sharing. We remain just as opposed to it today as ever we were, and the Secretary of State knows it. We have told him so.
7.15 pm
If there is an 85-seat Assembly and if 70 per cent. say "We believe that legislative powers should come back", hon. Members should realise that people might vote for that. The 70 per cent. could be attained. The people voting may not want to serve in the Administration, but they could say "Yes, we feel that power should come back and we will give you your 70 per cent." What happens then? Will this House say "You have your 70 per cent. Therefore, we will start to roll out the devolution"? Or will the House say "We do not like the colour of those voters. They are not our colour. Therefore, you will not have your power"? That is why the Bill is absolutely wrong and why it cannot and will not work.
It is no use anyone believing that that power will work. The Secretary of State will find that he has an Assembly that is prepared to do good work in its Committees and to keep a tight eye on him and his Ministers, but it will not be able to reach any agreement about executive and legislative power except that the House changes its mind on the subject. Otherwise this House will say "You have the 70 per cent. We thought that it was an insurmountable hurdle. You have got over it and we will now give you those devolved powers."
Sooner or later the House must face up to the Northern Ireland situation and to the fact that for 50 years Northern Ireland had legislative devolution. I was not a member of any Stormont Government. After the Republicans left, I


was leader of the Opposition. I had no responsibility for any legislation that was passed there. Nevertheless, Stormont did a good job and it is wrong for the hon. Member for Orpington to say that all we did was to wrangle about religion. The Kilbrandon report states about the legislation that went through that House:
We have no doubt at all that home rule was of considerable advantage to Northern Ireland. Particularly in the large areas of government which were unaffected, or at least were not dominated, by the community problem, conspicuous progress was made under it. Perhaps the most impressive of these was in the field of health, where Northern Ireland, which used to be well below the standards of Great Britain, caught up with and in some respects surpassed them. The other social services were steadily built up. Education was greatly improved and, though it still continues, below university level, in two almost entirely different systems—
that is the systems of Church and State schools—
 … and, though the level of unemployment continued to be higher than the average for Great Britain, the gap had been significantly narrowed at the time of the outbreak of the disturbances.
So it is not right to say that in 50 years the Stormont Parliament did nothing. It did a very good job in extremely difficult circumstances. It must he remembered that at the beginning the Parliament was boycotted and Lord Craigavon had to put his own men—the Labour Unionist delegates—across the Floor of the House in order to form an Opposition. It is very hard to run a Government without an Opposition—albeit there is a silent Opposition in the Committee at present, but no doubt we shall hear from them in due time.
Quotations have been given from a Mr. Carr who attended the Council for the Union. Mr. Carr stood as a local government candidate and forfeited his deposit. He cannot be said to represent anyone in Northern Ireland if he cannot even win a council seat. All sorts of suggestions have been made. The former Secretary of State told us that the SDLP vote was diminishing and that the Alliance was coining forward as the main party, that the Unionist Party might be able to hold its own but that the Party that I represent would be entirely obliterated. The House should not put its faith in opinion polls. The election results will show the true opinions of the people of Northern Ireland. I am prepared to abide by those results. The Assembly election results will demonstrate to this House yet again that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want democracy and they do not want it stood on its head. They want the right to a real say in decision making in the Province.
I oppose the amendment because it takes away the cornerstone of legislative devolution. We must have legislative as well as executive devolution. We cannot do anything else if we are to go by the Convention report.

Mr. John Patten: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervene now. First, I associate myself with the congratulations expressed to you, Mr. Dean, by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. If my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate now, he will not have heard the observations of at least three or four hon. Members, to put it at its lowest. [Interruption.] To judge from the remarks that I hear around me, it may be as many as 10. The Minister cannot possibly reply to hon. Members who have not spoken. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that this is a most unfortunate time for him to catch your eye, Mr. Dean.

The Second Deputy Chairman: That is a matter for the Minister. When the Minister in charge of a Bill rises, it is usual for him to be called. I am following the normal precedent.

Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Dean.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I thought that I had made it clear that no point of order arises.

Mr. Patten: We are in Committee, and it may be convenient if I intervene at this stage.

Mr. Gorst: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten: I should like to get on a little before giving way.
I associate myself with the remarks of congratulation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) to you, Mr. Dean, on assuming your: new responsibilities. I believe that we shall see a good deal more of each other.

Mr. Budgen: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to finish my remarks to you, Mr. Dean. I expect that we shall see a good deal of each other when Northern Ireland matters are discussed. They are usually discussed much later at night. Indeed, Northern Ireland affairs are not often discussed here in daylight and it is pleasant to be in that situation now, although the Committee may continue rather later on one or two nights. I now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen).

Mr. Budgen: From the way in which the Minister began his speech, I thought that he did not intend to give way at all. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I would have been saddened by such an approach. As I clearly misunderstood the Minister's attitude, however, I immediately withdraw what I said.

Mr. Patten: rose—

Mr. Gorst: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Patten: No, I intend to begin my speech—and begin it I shall.

Mr. Gorst: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Patten: No, I shall not give way. The debate has ranged very wide—far wider, I suggest, than the wording of the amendments might at first have suggested.

Mr. Gorst: Will the Minister give way now?

Mr. Patten: The amendments seek only the removal of a couple of words, but they point towards a quite different Bill and a quite different system of devolution from that to which the House gave a Second Reading.

Mr. Gorst: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten: If our positions were reversed, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) would no doubt find it most curious if I sought to intervene before he had made his first point. I shall certainly give way later.

Mr. Gorst: It might be more sensible if the Minister gave way now.

Mr. Patten: I repeat that the amendments seek only the removal of a couple of words, but they point towards a quite different Bill and a quite different system of devolution from that to which the House gave a Second Reading. It is on that that my argument will stand.
I should perhaps deal briefly with one or two general issues of principle, as they have been aired so much in the two days of this debate.

Mr. Gorst: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten: I intend to develop my argument.

Mr. Gorst: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten: I do not wish—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."]—I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee unnecessarily, but it might seem discourteous to those who have already spoken to ignore the arguments that have been made. I assure the Committee, however, that I do not intend to make a speech more suitable to a Second Reading debate.
Having completed that introduction, I now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North.

Mr. Gorst: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way now, although it would have been helpful if he could have answered at the start a question that is troubling many Members on this side of the House and perhaps, indeed, on both sides.
Does the Minister intend to make two speeches on this group of amendments? Unless we have some idea at this stage whether he intends to make a second speech, we shall be in great difficulty over the further contributions that I know my hon. Friends wish to make if they catch your eye, Mr. Dean.

Mr. Patten: At this stage I am attempting to assist the Committee by dealing with a number of wide-ranging matters. As I have said, the debate has ranged far more widely than the amendments, to which we should perhaps have addressed ourselves all the time.

Mr. Proctor: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. Will you rule on whether the Minister's observations about the scope of the debate going wider than the amendments actually allow is in any way a reflection on the judgment of the Chair?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I think that I made it clear—certainly my predecessors in the Chair made it clear—that this is a fairly wide amendment. Therefore, sensing the feeling in the Committee, the Chair has quite deliberately allowed a fairly wide debate.

Mr. Gorst: Further to that point of order, Mr. Dean. Could you give some guidance on whether you will be able to consider calling more hon. Members after the Minister has spoken?

The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced enough parliamentarian to know that the Chair cannot conceivably commit itself on that at this stage. We must see how we go.

Mr. Patten: If I may, Mr. Dean—

Mr. Proctor: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten: If I may, I shall continue trying to conclude my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North on whether this will be my only speech or whether I might seek to intervene again if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Dean, and should any other member of the Committee have been fortunate enough to do so. Clearly, I cannot predict at this stage whether I shall seek to intervene again.

Mr. Proctor: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten: No. I intend now to deal with the general, wide-ranging matters that have been made in the debate.
The first is the alleged threat to the unity of the kingdom. In our view, there is nothing in the Bill that could in any way be construed as a threat to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. In saying that, I seek to "read in" the view of the Government on this. The aim of the Bill is simply to provide a framework in which the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland can have—if I may borrow the expression of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell)—the opportunity to
restore the process of democracy".
7.30 pm
The constitutional position of Northern Ireland remains exactly as set out in section 1 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. That is that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom for as long as that is the wish of the majority of its people. Having said that, I hope that it will not be necessary for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reiterate that point during other debates on groups of amendments and single amendments.
As I said on Second Reading, the Assembly is subject to dual consent.

Viscount Cranborne: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Patten: I shall give way when I finish this point.
I said on Second Reading that the Assembly was subject to dual consent. It is important for the Committee to realise that. It is subject to the Assembly asking for devolution and the consent of this sovereign House of Parliament to give it, should Parliament so decide. The constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom is not threatened by the provisions of the Bill. I shall happily give way to my hon. Friend, if he wishes to refer to that point.

Viscount Cranborne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his courtesy in giving way. On the question whether the people of Northern Ireland wish to remain members of the United Kingdom, my hon. Friend says that that is the criterion by which he will judge whether the Six Counties remain part of the United Kingdom. I understand that the present position is that the Government have a discretion to hold a referendum every 10 years, or more frequently if they feel that that is advisable. Is it still the Government's intention to hold referendums at 10-yearly intervals? If it is, is that desirable, rather than relying on the opinion of the elected representatives of the Six Counties in Parliament?

Mr. Patten: That is a matter for consideration nearer 1983, when the next date falls due.
A second important point of principle that has arisen in this wide-ranging debate is the so-called West Lothian question. Naturally, I recognise the force of the arguments. However, those considerations, important though they may be in themselves and in other contexts, must be set, first, against Northern Ireland's special needs within the United Kingdom and, secondly, against Northern Ireland's long tradition of devolved government within the United Kingdom.
The unity of the kingdom has not depended, and does not now depend, upon constitutional uniformity. I challenge anyone in the Committee to suggest otherwise.


We have said on many previous occasions why the Government are firmly of the view that the restoration of devolved government holds out the best prospect of finding constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland that are acceptable to both sides of the community.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister has issued a challenge. I would be prepared to say that the unity of the kingdom depends upon the fact that the law in this kingdom at this time is made exclusively by or under the authority of the House.

Mr. Patten: In the 50 years that Stormont was in existence, the law within Northern Ireland was made by the sovereign power of Stormont within Northern Ireland as it related to the greater sovereign power of this Parliament in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Patten: I shall not give way. I gave way earlier to my hon. Friend. In the end he did not have a point that he wished to make. Therefore, perhaps he will forgive me if I continue to try to answer this interesting point on the challenge that I perhaps rather foolishly threw out. I said that at no stage in the history of the United Kingdom had there been a period when the unity of the kingdom depended on constitutional uniformity. I believe that to be so.

Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend said that there was no question of derogating from the unity of the kingdom. He will realise that Stormont was established in the hope of the Parliament of the time that one day there would be a reunion of the North and South. Stormont was an attempt to postpone the final unification of the kingdom. It is a little uncertain whether it is good sense to argue that devolution and the establishment of a devolved Assembly do not put in question the unity of the kingdom. It does, and Stormont was meant to. Let us not forget that.

Mr. Patten: Whatever was in the minds of the architects of Stormont more than half a century ago, and whatever their intentions, the effect turned out to be different. I intend to make this my last point and I shall not give way again on it. For 50 years Stormont, for whatever reasons it was founded, acted in a way that did not derogate from the unity of the United Kingdom. I hope that I have demonstrated why, in the Government's view, some of the anxieties that have prompted the amendments are not justified.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Patten: I must ask my hon. Friend to be fair. I have given way at least six times in a short period. I must have the opportunity to put forward the arguments of Her Majesty's Government.

Rev. Martin Smyth: rose—

Mr. Patten: I do not wish to be discourteous. I wish to direct the attention of the Committee to the powerful pleas that have been made for an increase in the powers of local government in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Surely the Minister will—

Mr. Patten: I wish to develop the argument about local government, and then I shall give way.
The Government believe that an increase in powers for district councils will be very contentious. I hope that the Committee will accordingly accept that, at the start of a process of constitutional development, that will require an enormous amount of good will. It would be counterproductive to do now as Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches propose.
I recognise the points that were made by the lion. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). He referred to the present insufficient democratic accountability in regard to the operation of boards and the provision of local government services in Northern Ireland. Those bodies are not unknown in England and Wales. England and Wales have regional health authorities and district health authorities, in exactly the same way as Northern Ireland, as I said in an intervention that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) kindly permitted me to make.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I should like clarification on two points. First, will the Minister acknowledge that for 60 years the Union was maintained because the Government in the devolved Parliament was a Unionist Government? Secondly, will the Minister enlighten the Committee about how many members of the statutory boards are failed politicians, rejected by the people and put there to make sure that the people's wishes are not carried out?

Mr. Patten: The second of the hon. Gentleman's questions requires me to make value judgments about the views in which Northern Ireland politicians are held by their peers in the Province, which I am not fit and able to make. I have already left the hon. Gentleman's first point. I reiterate that during the life of the Stormont Parliament it did not in any sense act against the unity of the United Kingdom.
It is the primary purpose of the Bill—

Mr. Richard Body: My hon. Friend is speaking at some speed and covering a great deal of ground in a short time. In view of his earlier remark about any extension of the powers of local councils being contentious, I wonder whether he or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has sought the opinion of local authorities, particularly those with non-Unionist majorities, to sere whether they favour an extension of powers.

Mr. Patten: I hope my hon. Friend will accept that I shall deal with these points later in my remarks on local government. My hon. Friend will perhaps be content to await that stage.
It is a primary purpose of the Bill to attempt to enable executive functions to be discharged in Northern Ireland by an administration that is directly accountable to a local elected Assembly. The name of Sir Patrick Macrory has been mentioned on a number of occasions. His recommendation that many functions are better exercised on a Province-wide basis than by local councils regains its original force if there is an elected Assembly and a local administration to exercise those powers. It is precisely for those reasons, among others, that we wish to see an Assembly set up.
The unsatisfactory character of the present position is that powers have been concentrated on a Province-wide basis and that the direct rule arrangements have removed these powers from Northern Ireland hands almost entirely,


except, perhaps indirectly, through the influence that membership of health and social services boards and education and library boards can bring.
I should like to draw to the attention of the Committee the fact that it would be open to the Assembly, once a devolved Administration had been re-established, to consider whether changes in the structure of local government in Northern Ireland were desirable. The Assembly would be free to do so under the terms of the Bill as they are drawn. It is, indeed, precisely the sort of matter that the Government accept the Assembly might wish to discuss, just at the Assembly might wish to discuss security or other related matters.
The last point—a fundamental one—is that, for all that hon. Members have said, there is no reason to believe that the devolution of executive responsibilities would be inherently less contentious than the devolution of legislative responsibilities. Anyone who knows the Province would say that the history of Northern Ireland sometimes has shown, since the 1920s, that the reverse is true. It was sometimes the exercise of executive power that gave rise to more dissent than the exercise of legislative power when Stormont was in existence. If an Assembly could reach agreement on the former, I believe that it could, and should, be given every opportunity to reach agreement on the latter.
We feel that the likelihood of workable proposals for devolution emerging that could command widespread acceptance would be materially greater if the Assembly had freedom to consider legislative and executive responsibilities together as it hammered out ways in which it could move from a consultative phase to a phase where it began to seek the devolution of powers to it under the dual consent of the Assembly itself and these Houses of Parliament. It is hard to see how one can deal with legislative issues without executive issues, to deal with the one independently of the other. It is for the reasons that I have given that I recommend to my right hon. and hon. Friends—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman has made an important statement, unless I have misunderstood him. I understood him to say that the Government were prepared to contemplate the idea that the Assembly should put forward proposals for—I use a general expression—filling the gap in local government. If that is to be one of the subjects that the Assembly can consider, I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is possible, as the Bill stands, to include it in the proposals, and if so, how that is included in the structure of the Bill as it stands? If not, will he say whether the Government propose to amend the Bill to enable the Assembly to put forward proposals for filling the local government gap?

Mr. Patten: I did not, I think, quite say that. I apologise if I did not make myself clear. Once the Assembly has been set up, and once it has passed from its consultative stage to the stage where it has some, at least, if not all, of the devolved powers that it can seek in the transferred field, the Assembly would be in the position to begin to review the arrangements for the conduct of affairs that are at present under the rule of the health boards or the education and library boards or, indeed, in local

government itself. It could reach that stage under the terms of the Bill, as presently drawn, only after devolved Government had been achieved.
I regret to say that the amendments before the Committee point to a different Bill and a different system of devolution from that to which the House gave a Second Reading. I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to resist them.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: I should like first, Mr. Dean, on behalf of the Labour Party, to take this first opportunity to extend our congratulations to you on taking up your new post. I shall not detain the Committee for too long. The actions witnessed in this Committee have been enlightening to myself and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley). After 16 years in the House, I feel a little sad that I should have to get to my feet to stop the internal fight on the Government Benches. I should like, however, to correct one false impression that has been given—

Mr. Body: The hon. Gentleman has used the word "sad". Is it not also sad that there are no Labour Back Benchers present?

Mr. Concannon: I have stated before, and do so again, that this is a problem for the Government and for the Government's supporters. If my party has complete faith in its two Front Bench spokesmen, which is the case, to put the views of the party, this is only a compliment to those two spokesmen. I am sure that the Government Front Bench wishes that it had the support of Conservative Members to the same degree.
I should like to correct one point that I would not wish to accuse the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) of making intentionally. The hon. Gentleman read from a paper that was supposedly an original Labour Party document. He failed to read out the conclusions. It is important for the Labour Party to put its views on record because it coincides with the attitude of the Labour Members to the first two amendments. It is right and proper that we take our stance on paragraphs 13 and 21 of the White Paper—

Mr. Gorst: I should like to correct a remark that the right hon. Gentleman made a few moments ago which I did not have the chance to raise with him at the time. There have been only five speeches, apart from that of the Minister, on this group of amendments. Only two have been made by Conservative Members. How does the right hon. Gentleman therefore draw the strange conclusion about a war on the Conservative Back Benches?

Mr. Concannon: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has studied the White Paper or read the Second Reading debate. This is the second day, or the attempted second day of the Committee stage, through the whole of which I have sat, apart from taking a couple of cups of coffee. I intend to go on sitting through the Committee stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North and I will have to take turns on the Front Bench, but I think that our stamina will be up to that.
I wish to correct one point, and to put our view on record. I should not like it to be thought that the Labour Party has given carte blanche to restoring all the local government authorities in Northern Ireland at one go. In


the paragraph that finishes up that part of our policy document, which was given virtually unanimous support at our conference last year, it says:
We would not favour, therefore, any major changes to local government without further consideration and consultation of those concerned. In the absence of a power-sharing devolved government, it would not be wise to go beyond the limited reforms suggested above.
Those limited reforms were those to which the hon. Member for Epping Forest referred, such as the limited reform to the democracy within the boards. We did not go further than that.
It is made obvious, by quoting that paragraph, that the Labour Party would be against the amendments.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jopling): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided; Ayes 153, Noes 28.

Division No. 176]
[7.50 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Eyre, Reginald


Alison, RtHonMichael
Fairgrieve, SirRussell


Arnold, Tom
Faith, MrsSheila


Aspinwall, Jack
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Baker, Kenneth(St. M'bone)
Fletcher, A.(Ed'nb'gh N)


Baker, Nicholas(N Dorset)
Forman, Nigel


Banks, Robert
Goodlad, Alastair


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gower, Sir Raymond


Beith, A. J.
Grant, Anthony(Harrow C)


Benyon, W.(Buckingham)
Gray, Hamish


Berry, Hon Anthony
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)


Best, Keith
Griffiths, PeterPortsm'th N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Grylls, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Hon A.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bright, Graham
Hannam, John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hawkins, Paul


Browne, John(Winchester)
Hawksley, Warren


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hayhoe, Barney


Bryan, Sir Paul
Henderson, Barry


Buck, Antony
Hill, James


Bulmer, Esmond
Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)


Butler, Hon Adam
Holland, Philip(Carlton)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hooson, Tom


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Horam, John


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, Peter


Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Howells, Geraint


Cockeram, Eric
Hunt, David(Wirral)


Cope, John
Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)


Costain, Sir Albert
Irvine, Bryant Godman(Rye)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, RtHonMichael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Kaberry, SirDonald


Dunn, Robert(Dartford)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Durant, Tony
Kitson, SirTimothy


Eggar, Tim
Lang, Ian


Elliott, SirWilliam
Lester, Jim(Beeston)





Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Scott, Nicholas


Lyell, Nicholas
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lyons, Edward(Bradf'dW)
Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)


MacGregor, John
Shersby, Michael


McNally, Thomas
Silvester, Fred


Major, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Marland, Paul
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marlow, Antony
Speller, Tony


Marshall, Michael(Arundel)
Stevens, Martin


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)


Mather, Carol
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mawby, Ray
Tapsell, Peter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mellor, David
Thompson, Donald


Mills, Iain(Meriden)
Thorne, Stan(Preston South)


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Townend, John(Bridlington)


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)


Moate, Roger
Trippier, David


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Neale, Gerrard
Viggers, Peter


Needham, Richard
Waddington, David


Nelson, Anthony
Wainwright, R.(Colne V)


Normanton, Tom
Wakeham, John


Onslow, Cranley
Waldegrave, Hon William


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wall, Sir Patrick


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Waller, Gary


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Ward, John


Patten, John (Oxford)
Wellbeloved, James


Pollock, Alexander
Wells, Bowen


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wheeler, John


Prior, Rt Hon James
Whitney, Raymond


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wickenden, Keith


Rhodes James, Robert
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Ridsdale, SirJulian
Wolfson, Mark


Rifkind, Malcolm
Young, SirGeorge(Acton)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



Roper, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Mr. Selwyn Gummer and


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Sandelson, Neville





NOES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Biggs-Davison, SirJohn
McQuade, John


Blackburn, John
Molyneaux, James


Body, Richard
Morgan, Geraint


Braine, Sir Bernard
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Brotherton, Michael
Murphy, Christopher


Brown, Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Budgen, Nick
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Cranborne, Viscount
Skinner, Dennis


Dunlop, John
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Farr, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Goodhart, SirPhilip
Winterton, Nicholas


Gorst, John



Kilfedder, James A.
Tellers for the Noes:


Knight, MrsJill
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor and


Lawrence, Ivan
Mr. William Ross.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 19, Noes 161.

Division No. 177]
[8.02 pm


AYES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Molyneaux, James


Biggs-Davison, SirJohn
Morgan, Geraint


Body, Richard
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Brown, Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Murphy, Christopher


Budgen, Nick
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Cranborne, Viscount
Stanbrook, Ivor


Farr, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Goodhart, SirPhilip



Gorst, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Knight, MrsJill
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor and


Lawrence, Ivan
Mr. William Ross.


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Gummer, JohnSelwyn


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hamilton, HonA.


Arnold, Tom
Hampson, DrKeith


Aspinwall, Jack
Hannam, John


Baker, Kenneth(St. M'bone)
Hawkins, Paul


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Hawksley, Warren


Banks, Robert
Hayhoe, Barney


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Henderson, Barry


Beith, A. J.
Hill, James


Benyon, Thomas(A'don)
Holland, Phillp(Carlton)


Benyon, W.(Buckingham)
Hooson, Tom


Berry, HonAnthony
Horam, John


Best, Keith
Howells, Geraint


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hunt, David(Wirral)


Blackburn, John
Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)


Blaker, Peter
Irvine, BryantGodman


Boscawen, HonRobert
Jessel, Toby


Boyson, DrRhodes
Jopling, RtHonMichael


Braine, SirBernard
Kaberry, SirDonald


Bright, Graham
Kilfedder, JamesA.


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
King, Rt Hon Tom


Brooke, Hon Peter
Kitson, SirTimothy


Brotherton, Michael
Lester, Jim(Beeston)


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'yS)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Browne, John(Winchester)
Lyell, Nicholas


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Lyons, Edward(Bradf'dW)


Buck, Antony
MacGregor, John


Bulmer, Esmond
MacKay, John(Argyll)


Butler, HonAdam
McNally, Thomas


Cadbury, Jocelyn
McQuade, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Major, John


Chapman, Sydney
Marland, Paul


Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Marlow, Antony


Cockeram, Eric
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Colvin, Michael
Mather, Carol


Cope, John
Mawby, Ray


Costain, SirAlbert
Mawhinney, DrBrian


Crawshaw, Richard
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Crouch, David
Mellor, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Mills, Iain(Meriden)


Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Dunlop, John
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Dunn, Robert(Dartford)
Moate, Roger


Eggar, Tim
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Elliott, SirWilliam
Myles, David


Eyre, Reginald
Neale, Gerrard


Fairgrieve, SirRussell
Needham, Richard


Faith, MrsSheila
Nelson, Anthony


Fisher, SirNigel
Normanton, Tom


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)
Onslow, Cranley


Forman, Nigel
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Goodlad, Alastair
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Gower, SirRaymond
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Grant, Anthony(HarrowC)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Gray, Hamish
Patten, John(Oxford)


Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)
Pollock, Alexander


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Grylls, Michael
Prior, Rt Hon James





Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thompson, Donald


RhodesJames, Robert
Townsend, CyrilD, (B'heath)


Ridley, HonNicholas
Trippier, David


Ridsdale, SirJulian
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rifkind, Malcolm
Viggers, Peter


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Waddington, David


Roper, John
Wainwright, R.(ColneV)


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Waldegrave, HonWilliam


Sainsbury, HonTimothy
Wall, Sir Patrick


Sandelson, Neville
Waller, Gary


Scott, Nicholas
Wellbeloved, James


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)
Wheeler, John


Shersby, Michael
Whitney, Raymond


Silvester, Fred
Wickenden, Keith


Skeet, T. H. H.
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Skinner,Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs(Crosby)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wolfson, Mark


Speller, Tony
Young, SirGeorge(Acton)


Stevens, Martin
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)



Stradling Thomas, J.
Tellers for the Noes:


Tapsell, Peter
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mr. Ian Lang.


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Mr. Gorst: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. I in no way wish to encroach upon your discretion—which is obviously unquestioned when it applies to when the closure is moved and accepted—but I should like your guidance on one matter. The mover of the amendment under discussion did not have an opportunity to reflect and to give his observations on the Government's reply. Furthermore, we were given no guidance on whether he wished to withdraw the amendment in the light of the Minister's reply. In future, if the Chief Whip or any other hon. Member moves the closure will any consideration be given at least to the hon. Member who moved the amendment, so that he can respond to the debate?

The Second Deputy Chairman: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but such circumstances frequently arise when the closure is moved. In such cases the Chair must use its discretion.

Mr. Michael Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Dean. Of course I accept that it is entirely for the Chair to decide whether to accept the closure. However, during our last debate the House was somewhat critical—in mood, if not in words—of the fact that the Minister intervened at a stage that those of us who wished to catch your eye thought unusual. If, during the remaining proceedings on the Bill—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is not raising a point of order. He is trying to resume a debate that has been completed. Will he please make his point of order?

Mr. Brown: I apologise, Mr. Dean. Would it not be a good idea to call the Minister concerned at the start of the debate and immediately after the mover of the amendments has spoken? Unlike proceedings in a Standing Committee, we had no opportunity to speak in the last debate, and we had to rely on the Minister being prepared to give way. Sometimes he did so with good grace, but at other times he refused. It is the Committee's duty to question the Minister, but we had no opportunity to do so unless he gave way. In addition, he moved rapidly. Will you ensure, Mr. Dean, that the Minister can be called immediately after the mover of the amendment,


so that hon. Members at least have the opportunity to question the Minister on his speech? We did not have that opportunity during our last debate.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I understand how the hon. Gentleman feels, but I should get into great trouble if I tried to decide when the Minister in charge of a Bill should be called. However, I am sure that the Ministers in the Chamber have heard the hon. Gentleman's views.

Mr. Farr: On a point of order. Before raising that point of order, Mr. Dean, may I wish you a long, happy and successful tenure? I am sure that you can readily advise those Conservative Members who do not agree with the Bill now to proceed if they wish to contribute to our debates. In the last debate, 10 or 11 Conservative Members failed to be called and only two succeeded. If that pattern is to be repeated, it will be difficult for Conservative Members to speak. I should like your advice in that respect.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With his long experience of the House, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that there is very little that the Chair can do in such cases. However, it is not unknown for those with grievances against Ministers to talk to them privately. In my experience of a previous incarnation, I sometimes found that quite a helpful device to adopt.

Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Dean. Although I welcome you to the Chair, is it not for the Chair to decide when the closure should be accepted? If, by chance, we felt that the Chair consistently accepted the closure early, our proper constitutional course would presumably be to table a motion. If Ministers are to make a habit of calling for the Patronage Secretary to move the closure although 10 hon. Members still wish to speak might they not be wise to allow some of those hon. Members to intervene in their speeches—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is debating my decision to accept the closure. That is not debatable and, furthermore, the matter has been dealt with.

Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Dean. Of course I do not wish to debate your decision or any future decision. But through you, might it not be helpful to the Committee, if Ministers were proposing to rise while many hon. Gentlemen were still waiting to speak, and to call for a closure after that if at least they were open and said that it was likely that there would be a closure at the end of the Minister's speech? Then if they do not give way there will be many hon. Members who may make such indications as they are properly able to make that perhaps a rather ready access to their questioning might be allowed. In the course of the Minister's speech there were many hon. Members who were anxious as to whether they would be able to speak. We did not press our questions and interventions because we naturally thought that we would be able to make a speech. The closure motion came as a great surprise to many of us.

The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not for me to decide when Ministers or any other hon. Members should rise in their places. I think that we should now get on with the next debate.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. I trust that you will keep in mind that the debate is of great interest to Northern Ireland Members. Northern Ireland Members were wanting to speak but had no opportunity to do so. This proposal affects our future. I trust that you will keep that in mind. The Conservatives have made a good plea for themselves. Ulster had better make a plea for itself.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman on that point. I shall do my utmost to see that all parts of the House, particularly minorities, have their rights fully respected in our debates.

Mr. Gorst: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. May I draw to your attention, as you are at the moment the protector supreme of the rights of Back Benchers, the fact that there is a problem that will worry many hon. Members about the matter that we are discussing? We are discussing a constitutional Bill that is not normally, as I understand it, subject to the guillotine, but there is a form of back door guillotine which is in danger of being introduced—the closure. We look for protection in this matter. I ask whether you can give us that protection should the occasion arise.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Perhaps I should add, in view of the oblique criticism in his remarks, that nothing out of order has occurred during the last debate or the last Divisions.

Mr. Body: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. I believe that it is within your discretion whether we should have a debate on clause 1 stand part. I realise that we have yet to reach the end of clause 1, but some 12 of us on the Conservative Back Benches were seeking to catch your eye. Some of us are disappointed that we were unable to do so as it was almost our last opportunity to express our views on the essential merits of the Bill. You said that you would permit a wide-ranging debate. Those of us who may have strong views about the Bill, not only on the Conservative Benches but on the Ulster Unionist Bench, may be deprived of an opportunity to express those views except on a narrow point. They would be able to do so if you, Mr. Dean, were to permit a stand part debate on clause 1. Will you consider permitting that to take place when the opportunity arises, as that would be some solace to those of us who waited long and patiently to make our speeches? Twelve of us sought to catch your eye not long ago.

The Second Deputy Chairman: It is a little too early in our proceedings on clause 1 for the Chair to make a decision on a clause stand part debate. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the point that he is putting—I believe that it has been put earlier—will be carefully borne in mind by the Chair before the ultimate decision is made.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 17, leave out subsection (2).

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take, the following amendments:
No. 119, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'shall', and insert 'may'.
No. 8, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'a', and insert 'the'.
No. 120, in page 1, line 21, leave out 'shall', and insert 'may'.
No. 10, in page 2, line 3, leave out from 'relate' to end of line 6.
No. 68, in schedule 1, page 7, line 15, leave out from 'force,' to end of line 17.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. May I, before I make my point of order, express my appreciation of the fact that what was called the provisional selection was, in fact, a provisional selection and that the Chair in its wisdom has been able to modify its selection as the Committee has proceeded with its work?
The point that I wanted to put to you, Mr. Dean, is that I understand that it is usual for hon. Members to be able to request a Division on amendments that are taken in conjunction with others. That being so, and since my hon. Friends and I would wish to divide on amendment No. 119, possibly on amendment No. 7, depending upon the Government's answer, if we get one, and amendment No. 10, might I, in mentioning that for convenience at this stage, inquire whether amendment No. 7 will in the event need to be put in a different form? You will appreciate that if amendment No. 7 is carried as it stands it will foreclose decision on the subsequent amendments.
I believe that it is normal in such cases to put amendment No. 7 in a special form that preserves the other amendments so that they may be divided upon. I believe that I have received signals of assent from you. I am obliged if I am correct in assuming that the position of amendments Nos. 119, 8 and 10 will be preserved in that way.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I hesitate to advise the right hon. Gentleman on procedural matters, but I am informed that if amendment No. 7 were to be defeated it would be possible to have Divisions on the other amendments. I shall consider the request that the right hon. Gentleman has made for separate Divisions on amendments Nos. 119, 8 and 10.

Mr. Powell: With regard to amendment No. 8, I said that when we have heard the debate—if we are able to have an adequate debate—my hon. Friends and I might wish to divide the Committee, in which case we will cause that view to be conveyed to you.
On a further point of order, Mr. Dean, regarding this group of amendments, may I submit to you, with great respect, that amendment No 68, which is associated with the remainder, relates to a wholly separate question? It would perhaps be for the convenience of the Committee and for the clarity of debate if the amendment could be taken separately. I wonder whether you will consider that even at this stage. It is essentially a—I hesitate to say narrow—clearly separate point from the wider matters that will arise from the rest of the amendments and you may decide that it would be more convenient for it to be debated separately.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I shall consider the request and discuss it with the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: May I add my felicitations to those that have already been uttered to you, Mr. Dean, on your assumption of office. It is fortunate—or perhaps

unfortunate—that you should begin with a complicated constitutional Irish measure, but we are glad that you are in the Chair.
The amendment stands in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and others. It is important and far-reaching, but I do not propose to speak at length. Other hon. Members will form their own opinions on its merits. I hope that the Committee will welcome the opportunity to explore the Secretary of State's mind on the complicated and, in some respects, obscure proposals again to form a devolved or partially devolved Government. I shall not argue whether it be "resumption" or "assumption", which is the subject of an amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan). We should like to learn from the Secretary of State how, in practice, the Government see the coming about of the new Executive in Northern Ireland.
Those of us who believe that the better future of Northern Ireland and the safety and prosperity of the people of the Province are best secured under this one sovereign Parliament wish to delete subsection (2) and with it the proposed Executive. Nevertheless, on the assumption that some such body may come into existence we should like to know more of the Government's intentions.
I shall not weary the Committee by reading extensively from the White Paper or recalling the expositions that Ministers gave on Second Reading. I summarise the relevant part of the proposal by saying that one or more of the Northern Ireland Departments, with the important exception of the Department of Finance and Personnel, may be devolved and placed under heads of Departments. No doubt they, like members of the former Executive, headed by the late Brian Faulkner, would wish to be styled Ministers. But one or more Departments may be devolved and placed under heads appointed from among the Assembly by the Secretary of State. All the affairs of such departments would then come under the Assembly within a dual system in which there would be Ministers responsible to Parliament here and Ministers—if I may use the shorthand for heads of Department—responsible to the Assembly, and these would collaborate, always subject to the support of the Assembly.
In the debate on amendment No. 2 I complained of a colonial attitude in the Northern Ireland Office to Northern Ireland and a colonial approach in the Bill to the Province's constitutional future. In an earlier incarnation I served in India, as did the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). At one point in the march of India towards self-government there was the Montague-Chelmsford reform, under which the provinces of British India were subjected to diarchy—a dual system. Ministers were entrusted with certain departments and were responsible for them to the provincial legislature. An equal number of departments were retained under officials.
The precedent is not at all precise, although I might in passing say that India resembles Ireland in that partition was the necessary corollary of independence. Diarchy illustrated—where it has been operated it nearly always, if not always, illustrates—the disadvantages of members of the same executive body answering to different masters.
After the Montague-Chelmsford reform had introduced diarchy into India, such was the friction and inefficiency that the Simon Commission reported against the system and it disappeared from the provincial sphere in India,


although it is true that it emerged for some time in the central Government of India under the Government of India Act 1935.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. I am very anxious to hear my hon. Friend's argument, and I am trying hard to do so, but there is a frightful noise in the Chamber. I do not ask for the adjournment of the committee until it is put right, but if it is an electrical fault perhaps something can be done about it immediately or the sound system can be turned off. I know that the strength of my hon. Friend's feeling is such that he could hold the attention of the Chamber without a microphone.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman is inconvenienced by the noise. My attention has been drawn to it and I hope that it will soon be put right.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I hope that it is nothing electronic under our feet, but I shall persevere. I was so interested in my remarks that I did not notice the noise.
Paragraph 45 on page 11 of the White Paper explains that
If the Assembly opted for partial devolution, the responsibility for 'transferred' matters would be divided between Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
In other words, there would be diarchy. The paragraph continues:
United Kingdom Ministers and Heads of the departments drawn from the Assembly would then need to develop an effective working relationship"—
they certainly would—
but executive responsibility for devolved matters would fall to the latter who would be answerable for their actions to the Assembly. Legislative responsibility for devolved matters would be exercised by the Assembly …Executive and legislative responsibilities would be devolved only in respect of complete Northern Ireland departments.
The heads of the Departments would be drawn from the Assembly. Does my hon. Friend the Minister believe that it would be impossible for the head of a Department to be appointed from outside the Assembly? Do the Government have a closed mind on that matter? When the late Brian Faulkner was Prime Minister of Northern Ireland he appointed to his Cabinet from outside the Northern Ireland Parliament Dr. G. B. Newe, who was the first Roman Catholic Member of a Northern Ireland Cabinet. I should be grateful for some enlightenment on that point, because there might be advantages, assuming that the Executive comes into being, if an appointment is made from outside.

Mr. Stanbrook: Surely there are difficulties in such a proposal. Any such person would have to be a Member of the Assembly. If he were not, how could he be answerable to the Members of the Assembly for the functions of the Department? That strikes at the root of the problem in Northern Ireland. We are not talking about a system of diarchy. I could have capped my hon. Friend's example of India with the position in Nigeria. I helped to draft some of the documents for what we did in Nigeria. In the end, the system did not work, and it may be that my hon. Friend's suggestion is equally unlikely to work.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am trying to probe the minds of Ministers. In the precedent which I quoted, the right hon. Gentleman concerned was not a Member of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland. I fully take the point that my hon. Friend has made.
Can the Minister tell us whether it is unchangeable in the mind of the Government that the appointments of these heads of Departments should be made by the Secretary of State rather than by the chief Executive who may be appointed? As it happens, this was the subject of a new clause which I moved to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. There are those who think that if the appointment of the members of the then Executive had been left to Mr. Faulkner instead of being made by the then Secretary of State, it might have been to the advantage of Northern Ireland.
On Second Reading I put to the Treasury Bench a question which is relevant to this amendment and it might be helpful if I were given a reply. I said:
let us suppose that a Unionist Party or group of parties were to return 70 per cent. representation made up of Catholic and Protestant Unionists perhaps in proportion to Catholics and Protestants in the Province. Does my right hon. Friend or the Government apprehend that Parliament would entrust those Unionists with devolved government?
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) intervened to say:
It is my understanding—the Secretary of State may be able to enlighten us—that not only would Unionist Roman Catholics be unacceptable for the purposes of 'cross-community consent', but that Roman Catholic Alliance Members would not be acceptable. In other words, they have to be Republican Roman Catholics.
I continued my speech by saying:
This fills me with greater gloom and despondency about the Bill."—[Official Report, 10 May 1982; Vol. 23, c. 490.]
I should be grateful if I could have an answer from the Minister. Like so much in the Bill, it seems that there will not only be confusion through divided counsels, but that there will be a further tendency to institutionalise the division between what are called the two sides of the community, although a satisfactory definition of that phrase is never provided.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: My hon. Friends and I cannot be alone amongst those who have studied this subsection in finding it very difficult to understand and in having in our minds many queries as to what is intended. Those queries are quite separate, and I shall endeavour in my speech to keep them separate from the constitutional difficulties which are inherent in the nature of a rolling devolution and which therefore arise in that part of subsection (2) which relates to subsection (1)(b). Perhaps it will be clearest if I divide subsection (2) into three parts for the purpose of exposition and inquiry.
The first part concerns the proposals made under paragraph (a), that is, the case of devolution at one go or the revival of the 1973 constitution straight away. The second part is what is now technically called rolling devolution, that is, "Proposals under paragraph (b)", taking us over the page to the word "relate" in line 3 of page 2. Then there is a third matter—proposals for the appointment of persons
to assist any person appointed as head of any such department".
Perhaps therefore, with the leave of the Committee, I may deal with those three parts of the subsection separately and in that order.
8.45 pm
Of course, one cannot understand the subsection except by reference to section 8 of the Northern Ireland Constitutional Act 1973. Section 8 does not refer to a Northern Ireland Executive. Section 8 defines "the"


Northern Ireland Executive, and under the 1973 Act there is only one Northern Ireland Executive, the Executive as defined and described in section 8 of that Act.
Therefore, my first query to the Government—it will be perhaps the slightest of my queries—is, what is the significance of the substitution of the indefinite article "a" for the definitive article "the" in the proposals which are mandatory under subsection (1)(a) of this proposals which are mandatory under subsection (1)(a) of this clause? It seems curious, if the proposals relate to the operation of the Constitution Act, that the Assembly should apparently be given the duty to make proposals for any old Executive—if I may be allowed to use that expression—whereas the operative powers to implement it are concerned only with "the" Northern Ireland Executive, as that is defined in section 8 of the 1973 Act.
My difficulty attaching to the indefinite article "a" Northern Ireland Executive is cumulated when I look at what the Assembly is invited to do. It is invited to make
proposals as to the composition
of the Executive. The Constitution Act sets out the composition of the Executive. So does this mean that the proposals can be proposals for rewriting section 8 of the Constitution Act so that when the Secretary of State proceeds—if he does so proceed—to make an Order in Council under clause 2 he can, if the Assembly has so proposed, bring into existence an Executive of a different composition from that which is laid down in section 8 of the Constitution Act?
From certain signs, I gather that the importance of this is clear to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Minister who is to reply. If we are to be permissively amending section 8 of the Constitution Act—we are not doing so expressly under the terms of the Bill, as far as I can tell—we need to be told by the Government within what limits and for what purposes and in what ways they would regard as acceptable proposals by the Assembly for remoulding the composition of the Executive, as set out in the aforesaid section 8.
If that is not the meaning of
proposals as to the composition
in line 18, I cannot understand what those words mean. Surely they cannot mean the nomination of individuals whom they think they would like to have composing the Assembly. If that were so, some might have died or taken other appointments or otherwise disqualified themselves between the Assembly putting forward its proposals and the Secretary of State getting around to making an Order in Council and then making the relevant appointments. So the expression
proposals as to the composition of a Northern Ireland Executive
must surely mean proposals for a Northern Ireland Executive differently composed from that which is described in section 8 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. That being so—and until I have heard the Minister's speech I cannot see any escape from that conclusion—the Government should tell the Committee what they had in mind by giving the Assembly not merely the permissive power to propose amendments to section 8 regarding the composition of the Executive but to make it mandatory upon it with the word "shall" to make proposals for the composition of the Northern Ireland Executive.
Having addressed that invitation to the Minister to assist me and the rest of the Committee by elucidation, perhaps it is an appropriate moment to observe that it is not of the slightest use to the Committee to be favoured with a reply from the Dispatch Box if the Committee is in no position after receiving that reply to consider it and debate it further. It makes a mockery of our endeavour to understand, let alone to approve, a Bill if, when we are beginning with the assistance of the Minister to understand what is in the Government's mind and to be led towards an interpretation of the clause, we are told that that is to be the end of the debate.
I hope that in our wrestling with subsection (2)—I fear we shall have to wrestle for some time because it is difficult stuff—we shall have the genuine assistance of the Government by way of a genuine intervention, giving the answers to the points which, if not of drafting, are of interpretation and giving us an outline of what they had in mind when they drafted the subsection. On that basis we can receive enlightenment and come to a conclusion—that is the purpose of the Committee—on whether we think that it is or is not a good idea. Strange and even unpleasing though this may be to an Administration, the purpose of proceedings in Committee is to ascertain whether the Committee happens to agree with the Government in the effect that they intend to introduce by each successive provision of the Bill.
That was in the nature—although an important one—of an interpolation or a parenthesis. I return to my questions under the first of the parts into which I divided subsection (2)—the first compartment, to avoid ambiguity, into which I divided the subsection. It is mandatory in that compartment to make proposals for the other appointments to be made under section 8. I have now passed from the proposals for the composition of an Executive, having put on the record I hope with sufficient clarity my difficulties and anxieties, to the proposals for the other appointments to be made under section 8.
I have been studying section 8 of the 1973 Act. Hon. Members are probably familiar with it, but if they have it in front of them they will see that the Northern Ireland Executive consists of the chief executive, the persons who are for the time being heads of Northern Ireland Departments and a third category described as
any other person appointed under subsection (3) below to be a member of the Executive.
Presumably the reference to other appointments is a reference to appointments under section 8 (3) of the 1973 Act. That is the best that I can do without further assistance. Once they are appointed, they are members of the Executive, and therefore presumably they are part of the composition of the Executive.
That sends me back to my old anxieties about proposals for the composition of the Executive, which may involve a remodelling of the principles of the composition of the Executive as set out in section 8 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. I have been watching the Minister's face attentively as a mariner might scan the skies, and I must conclude from my failure to observe the slightest sign of affirmation or dissent that the Minister is still in the same condition of doubt as I am about the "other appointments" that are referred to in line 19 of page 1, and whether they are the appointments to be made under section 8(3). On the assumption that they are, I am faced with my difficulty. The subsection states that


the Secretary of State … may appoint such number of additional persons (if any) as he thinks fit to discharge, whether as members of the Executive or otherwise, such functions as he may determine; but the total number of persons at any time holding appointments under this section shall not exceed twelve.
These other appointments presumably include the maximum of 12 to be made by the Secretary of State
to discharge … such functions as he may determine
whether as members of the Executive or otherwise. I take it that it is to be mandatory upon the Assembly to make proposals as to those appointments.
I wonder what the Assembly is intended to understand by that. Is it, for instance, to make proposals to the effect that the Secretary of State should not exercise that power? Would that count? Would that be covered by the wording? Would that fulfil the mandate that they shall make proposals? Are they to write to the Secretary of State "Dear Secretary of State, we should much prefer, and we hereby propose, that you make no additional appointments", or are they to make proposals for the composition, character, nature, peculiarities and qualifications of those who are to be appointed under section 8(3) of the 1973 Act?

9 pm

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I fear that the right hon. Gentleman may be constructing a great argument on the basis of section 8 of the 1973 Act. In fact, paragraph 2 of schedule 1 substantially amends subsections (1) to (7) of section 8 of the 1973 Act.

Mr. Powell: I am much obliged.

Mr. Proctor: In reading schedule 2, which amends section 8 of the 1973 Act, the right hon. Gentleman will probably come across some matters that give cause for concern, especially paragraphs 1(5) and 1(6). Although it may have escaped his notice temporarily that it is proposed to amend section 8 by schedule 2, the worries that he has put before the Committee still exist and perhaps are superimposed.

Mr. Powell: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. He is quite right, but he has other places than that to represent.
The new subsection (3) which is substituted by paragraph 1 of schedule 2 seems—if I am wrong perhaps the Minister will correct me again—to involve many of the same considerations. I am grateful for the Minister's assent. Although I owe the Committee an apology for having directed its attention in the course of my queries to subsection (3) of the old section 8 in the 1973 Act I may—I have the Minister's permission now—direct it to the new subsection (3) as schedule 2, if it is enacted, will substitute it.
Once again, I inquire what is to be the nature of the proposals that must come forward from the Assembly as to the exercise by the Secretary of State of his power to make the additional appointments—to make appointments additional to, separate from, or in the course of the composition of a Northern Ireland Executive? Does it in any way give them the power—clearly not—to modify the statutory provisions that we are to make in schedule 2 or does it give them the power to make additional qualifications? in other words, does it lay down—this is the type of suggestion that I was making when the Minister

was good enough to intervene to assist me—directions that they must show what types of person, for fulfilling what functions and what qualifications, whether political, partisan, sectarian or otherwise, they must have?
Coming to a conclusion on the first compartment of subsection (2), I hope that the nature of the mandatory proposals that are to come from the Assembly, both as to the composition and as to the "other appointments", can be made clear as we would not wish, I should have thought, to require the Assembly to make proposals unless it had an indication, and unless we had an indication in giving it that mandate, of the nature of the proposals that are to come from it and the extent to which those proposals might modify or elaborate the scheme set out in the 1973 Act and modified by the amendments in the schedule.
I come now to the second compartment—the rolling devolution proposals. Rolling devolution proposals must include proposals as to the appointment of a head of a Northern Ireland Department or two or more Northern Ireland Departments. If I have construed that correctly, I want to know what type of proposals these are. What is meant by saying that the Assembly must put forward proposals with regard to the appointment of the head of a Northern Ireland Department? Does it simply mean—I do not believe that it can—that it is to say "We want a devolved Department of the Environment and we want it to have a head" because they have said under subsection (1)(b) that they want a devolved Department of the Environment? It seems to be adding little or nothing to say that it must then make proposals to the effect that the Department will have a head. Surely there must he more to it than that.
So what proposals are there to be made? Is the Assembly to make proposals to the effect, for example, that the head of the Department of the Environment shall alternately or successively be taken from each of the political parties that are represented in the Assembly? Is it to say that the head of the Department is to be a person qualified in public health or a person with experience in the administration of the matters that fall to the Department of the Environment? What sort of proposals as to the appointment of a head of a Department or two or more Departments are so important that it is not just en optional extra for the Assembly to make such proposals but that it is absolutely mandatory upon it as an essential part of the operation of the process of devolved devolution?

Mr. Porter: Could not the word "proposal" be replaced by "nomination"? That is what it seems to mean. Schedule 2 provides that the persons appointed
shall be from among persons who are members of the Assembly".
Therefore, a proposal for a head from among those people would be a nomination to the Secretary of State, who is then subject to the 70 per cent. rule. The Secretary of State seems also to have a veto, as appointments
shall be such as will in the opinion of the Secretary of State command widespread acceptance throughout the community.
That is how I see it. Whether the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) sees it that way, I know not. It is still very confusing.

Mr. Powell: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, who has clearly trodden some of the path that I trod in my mind in trying to understand this.
When I tried to understand this as a nomination, however, I encountered the difficulty that the proposals are


preliminary to a decision by the Secretary of State to make an Order in Council in compliance with them. Unless all this is speedily performed, a nomination in any ordinary sense of the term might well be out of date before the time came for it to be implemented. Moreover, the proposals referred to in clause 1(2) must be once-for-all proposals. They must be proposals of a general or normative character which will always apply. Therefore, although the point about nomination had occurred to me, I had dismissed it on that account.
The hon. Gentleman's intervention brings me to the major constitutional issue which is most conveniently raised in this second compartment of subsection (2). The appointments are to be made by the Secretary of State on behalf of Her Majesty in the fashion set out in schedule 2. In fact, the appointees are to be Her Majesty's Ministers, at any rate in that sense.
The individuals appointed as heads of what I shall call the devolved Departments will be so appointed by reason of the composition and opinions of the Assembly, among other things. If they are not held to be responsible to the Assembly for the discharge of their office, it is difficult to see in what sense we are talking about devolution at all. I take it, therefore, that these appointments will be of persons who must retain the confidence of the Assembly. They will be there because they are to be responsible to the Assembly, and responsibility depends, as it does in the constitution of the United Kingdom, upon seeking to retain and succeeding in retaining the confidence of the elected Assembly.

Mr. Porter: No.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman disagrees with that. Perhaps we shall both be enlightened. He will agree with me, at any rate, that if the persons so appointed are not in that sense responsible to the Assembly we are not talking about devolution. We are not talking about democracy either, because appointees to the heads of Northern Ireland Departments could then cock a snook at the Assembly and need not conform with its decisions. I cannot believe that that is the intention.

Mr. Porter: That may not be the intention, but exactly that is said in schedule 2. Responsibility to the Assembly would appear to be restricted to being a Member of it, and thereafter there is nomination. I do not think that there is any responsibility to the Assembly, or any need to have the confidence of the Assembly.

Mr. Powell: That shows how important subsection (2) is. If subsection (2) opens up so grave a question, indeed destroys the foundations of the whole notion of devolved responsibility, we cannot be said to be wasting our time in investigating subsection (2).
I must admit that, as before, I have put a rather more generous construction—more generous in the attribution of rationality to the draftsmen and the Government—upon the Bill than has the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter). I confess that I had assumed, though I admit that it is to be read between the lines rather than on the lines of schedule 2, that the heads of Department who would be appointed in consequence of rolling devolution proposals under clause 1(1)(b) will be appointed because it is assumed that they enjoy the

confidence of the Assembly and will cease to enjoy the confidence of that Assembly unless their administration conforms with its wishes and unless they can defend themselves against the criticism of the Assembly.
Let me bring the matter into practical terms. Let us suppose that X is appointed head of a devolved Department of the Environment. X is a good fellow. He is appointed one of Her Majesty's Ministers by the Secretary of State in accordance with the proposals. But the Assembly takes it into its head to pass a vote of censure upon X for the manner in which he administers the Department of the Environment. I suppose that it would be possible for the Assembly to pass such a resolution. It would be difficult.
We shall come to the question of standing orders. I hesitate to think that the reference to standing orders in subsection (3) is designed to prevent the Assembly from passing motions of no confidence in heads of Departments, so I proceed on the assumption that it will be within its powers of competence to pass resolutions of no confidence. Following that train of thought, what does "X" do then—or rather what does the Secretary of State do then?

Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how he understands the rolling back provisions of devolution? I understand that once a power has been devolved under the rolling scheme, the old Stormont conventions will obtain. There can be no discussion of the exercise of that devolved power, yet under clause 5 the House, if the Bill unhappily becomes law, will retain the right to bring back the devolved power. If in those circumstances the House is considering whether to bring back the devolved power, how can it do that if it cannot ask questions about how the power is being exercised and if it cannot make a judgment on whether it would be right to bring back the power? It seems to me that the existence of the non-supervision that obtained in relation to Stormont is wholly inconsistent with the proposal that devolution might be drawn back.

Mr. Powell: I follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, which is important. I shall not for more than a moment allow my eye to stray to clause 5, but it is true that there we find the words:
If it appears to Her Majesty after taking into account any relevant proceedings in the Assembly—".
9.15 pm
Her Majesty is to keep an eye on the proceedings in the Assembly. As we know, this means, when translated, that we are to keep an eye on proceedings in the Assembly. It is no good the Secretary of State saying, "It will be me who will keep an eye on the proceedings in the Assembly". He has to come to the House and say, "I do not like what has been going on in the Assembly". So we are back with this House exercising a surveillance and continuing interest in the administration of Northern Ireland, at any rate under the rolling devolution provisions that hon. Members are considering in this compartment of subsection (2). The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has carried me on more swiftly—

Mr. Budgen: The right hon. Gentleman asked the rhetorical question "What will the Secretary of State do?" The Secretary of State might decide in the circumstances to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred that there had ceased to be the necessary confidence within the


Assembly. It may be the case that he had ceased to have any confidence in those who led the Assembly or that the Assembly itself had no confidence in those who led its deliberations. There was, for one reason or another, therefore, an impasse that required the Secretary of State to come to the House and ask that the power be devolved back to its origins, namely, to the Westminster Parliament.
We are then left with the extraordinary position in which hon. Members may not ask questions about what is happening in the Assembly and the Assembly may not in any way defend itself through the Secretary of State. We may only read perhaps inaccurate newspaper reports that do scant justice to the difficulties under which the Assembly is working. Yet we are suddenly presented, at the end of the day, with a desperate Secretary of State saying to the House of Commons "You will know, albeit from only the most unreliable and hearsay evidence, that everything has gone wrong in the Assembly. We must now call back the powers."

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Before the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is tempted to reply to that intervention, may I say that it goes rather wide of this group of amendments. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would confine his remarks to this group of amendments and not be tempted to go wider.

Mr. Powell: I shall endeavour to earn your gratitude, Mr. Weatherill. I was, however, considering, in a manner I think wholly germane to subsection (2), what would happen to X, being a head of a devolved Department, if the Assembly passed a resolution of no confidence in his administration. I must concede, and I hope that I may concede to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that this might constitute part of a situation in which the Secretary of State would use his powers under clause 5.

The Chairman: Order. That is exactly what I was trying to warn the right hon. Gentleman about. We are not dealing with clause 5 at this moment. The right hon. Gentleman is answering an intervention that goes wide of the group of amendments.

Mr. Powell: I am sorry, Mr. Weatherill, that I have failed in my endeavour, but I am strictly considering the nature of appointments of heads of Northern Ireland Departments under subsection (2) and proposals relating to those appointments referred to in the subsection. Other hon. Members as well as myself are struggling to get a notion of what might be proposed about the appointment of such heads of Departments. In the course of trying to understand, we have envisaged a given head of a Department, designated X, who has been so unfortunate as to have a resolution of no confidence carried against him by the Assembly.

Mr. Molyneaux: rose—

Mr. Powell: I shall complete my submission to you, Mr. Weatherill, both in the technical sense of always addressing the Chair, and in the sense of addressing myself to your implicit point of order.
There has to be some way of dealing with the predicament of X. Maybe that way is to be found somewhere else in the Bill, but if we are to understand what the Assembly is to do, in making the proposals as to the appointment of heads of Departments, we must address

our minds to the possibility that, let us say, four or five Department heads have been appointed under this section and, yet, the heads of the other Departments are not appointed under this section but are still appointed under the 1974 Act, as at present. At least, they are not appointed under the 1974 Art, their functions are deemed under the 1974 Act, but they are looked after, may I colloquially say, under the 1974 Act. It is that possibility that I am trying to envisage.
It is my submission that it is at this point in the Bill that we are required to envisage the implications of a Government of Northern Ireland who comprise a number of heads of Departments appointed under this section, and the consequentials, and also Ministers who are appointed in a quite different way and with a quite different responsibility. In envisaging that, surely Mr. Weatherill, we are doing exactly what the Assembly is told that it must do to put forward proposals as to the appointment of heads of Northern Ireland Departments.
It appears to me that it will be impracticable to operate the government of Northern Ireland under rolling devolution if the heads of Departments so appointed are responsible to the Assembly, because we shall then have an Administration in Northern Ireland, part of which is responsible to the Assembly, or some parts of which are responsible to the Assembly, but with the rest—including, I notice, but we shall come to it later, the Finance Department—being responsible through the Cabinet of the United Kingdom, to this assembly.
On the hypothesis put forward by the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter), that the heads of Departments would not be responsible to the Assembly, all is well. They are then in the same position as the existing Ministers and junior Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office. However, once we accept, as surely we must, because what else is meant by the expression "devolution", rolling or otherwise, that the heads of Departments are responsible to the Assembly, which means the Assembly can pass a vote of no confidence in them, then we have a constitutional impossibility. We have then, by a different route, the negation of responsibility.
We have negation of responsibility in two forms. These heads of Departments can come to the Assembly and say that they would like to administer their Departments differently, but that they cannot. The Assembly will ask why they cannot, and the heads of Departments will reply that they cannot do so because they are part of a team up at Stormont, the other members of which are responsible, through the Cabinet, to the House of Commons. What is more, however, it is a team that has to take collective decisions upon the financing and other matters affecting the governance of the Province.
Therefore, in his speech defending himself upon a motion of no confidence, X might conclude: "You are firing at the wrong target. It is not me you should be complaining of; you should be complaining of the people who are not responsible to you." We should have created a pretence, a simulacrum, of responsibility, when there is no responsibility. We should have put persons in an impossible position; a position in which, being members of a team collectively governing a province, they are tempted, indeed, they are positively needled, into being bad, rebellious and disloyal colleagues. Those are all


matters that the Assembly will have to consider if it is making proposals as to the appointment of heads of Departments.
The word "disloyal" brings me to another question. Can there be responsibility without collective responsibility? That is not a question that it is necessary normally to ask in the House in 1982. That question was decided in the House the best part of three centuries ago. The House understands well that there is no responsibility to it unless there is collective responsibility amongst the members of an Administration. Once let the individual members of an Administration say "Well, I did not agree with it", and the House, or any elected body, has lost its control.
Under rolling devolution we propose to create for Northern Ireland an Administration which, by definition, cannot have collective responsibility, because one part of it is responsible to one body and another part of it is responsible to another body. It is all very well for Her Majesty's Ministers in the United Kingdom to be collectively responsible to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. We understand that. However, now we are to have some of Her Majesty's Ministers in Northern Ireland responsible to the Northern Ireland Assembly and some of them responsible to the United Kingdom Parliament. In those circumstances it is a mockery to talk about collective responsibility, and therefore a mockery to talk about responsibility.
It appears to me, and perhaps it will to the Assembly if it ever comes into existence and debates this point, amongst others, at greater length, perhaps with greater eloquence than we are able to command in Committee this evening, that we come to the conclusion that rolling devolution is sham devolution; that it offers a pretence without the reality, and that, like so much else in this proposal, it will be a cause of dissension, discontent and frustration, and not of the prevention of those evils. Therefore, there is a large as well as a small aspect to the second compartment of subsection (2).
I did rather incautiously slap down my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). One does not readily slap down the leader of one's party, but I fear I may have done so. I hope that the moment has not passed when I can respond.

Mr. Molyneaux: Fortunately, I am in a generous mood, and I forgive the offence.
It might help my right hon. Friend if I explain my misunderstanding of the grades of Ministers in the language of the Northern Ireland Office, which one may not hear publicly. There will be two grades of Ministers, British Ministers and native Ministers. It is possible for one native Minister heading one Department to lose the confidence of the Assembly, although not in the sense that a Minister here might lose the confidence of the House. If, for example, cross-community consent were withdrawn in the Department of Education over a controversial issue, the Secretary of State explained in answer to my question that he would have no option but to recommend to Parliament that the native Minister should be dismissed and the power clawed back to the House. That might create further complications for the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), because he

would then have to ask the Table Office whether he could table questions on education in Northern Ireland now that the native Minister had been sacked.

Mr. Powell: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention and am glad to have received his absolution. However, he has taken a rather more extreme—although in a way a simpler—case than the one that I posed. I posed the case that the head of a Department might have given dissatisfaction to the Assembly in a manner that was not expressed and could not be related to the Assembly's sectarian, or party composition. It might have supposed that he was incompetent, or taken him as responsible—as we would take a Minister in this House as responsible—for the deficiencies in his Department, for non-provision, for example, in the schools or for a delay in providing a supply of pure, wholesome water in portions of my constituency. Indeed, I now have to take up that matter with the Under-Secretary of State. In those circumstances—quite apart from the sectarian mechanism to which my hon. Friend alluded—the very notion of responsibility becomes unsustainable.

Mr. Budgen: While I am speaking, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look at clause 5(3). There, the Secretary of State's powers against the native Minister are very wide. He can take back the devolved powers not merely because there has been some injustice in relation to the sectarian divide, but on the wide ground
that the continued operation of the Order does not command widespread acceptance throughout the community".
If, for example, the native Minister managed a mental hospital and had been clearly negligent in the way in which he had appointed the supervisor, it might well be said that he no longer enjoyed widespread acceptance throughout the community. The danger is that the Secretary of State could constantly blackmail and threaten native Ministers with clause 5(3), and the House would have no means of knowing whether he was justified.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the fact that the Secretary of State has a big thunderbolt—the thunderbolt that Jove refuses us permission to touch at this stage of our proceedings—and a small thunderbolt, which we are allowed to play with and handle at present. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman has the power to replace the head of a Department, but he also has the power to take away the Department altogether. It is a delicious thought—and perhaps some of us wish only that we could exercise a similar power in this House—that if we disapproved of a Minister, we could abolish the Department altogether. What a wonderful way of dealing with the f—. I suppose that I should not say that. I was going to say the Foreign Office, but I did not. I just managed to stop in time.
I turn to the last subdivision—this.is permissive—which includes the words
may include proposals as to the appointment … of a person to assist any person appointed as head of any such department.
In the Northern Ireland Office at present we have Under-Secretaries, several of whom answer for several Departments. They are hard-working, able, agreeable and devoted Members of the House of Commons or another place. There must be times when they feel and we feel it on their behalf that they are near to breakdown, but they are doing a double job not merely in the sense that they


are heads of several Departments, as for example the Minister of State is head of the manpower, commerce and agriculture Departments, but in United Kingdom terms they are both Ministers and local authorities. Without in any way back-tracking into the debate that was so lamentably curtailed earlier this evening, I submit that it would be wrong to equate those individuals—I hope that as there is only one example in the Committee at the moment he will not take anything that I say personally, but purely by way of example—and their burdens with those who would be appointed heads of Departments of whom, in a complete devolved Administration, there would be perhaps a dozen or more.
Do we really wish to encourage the Assembly to provide a Parliamentary Secretary to a Parliamentary Secretary? "Ah", says the spirit of Stormont, "but that is not what it is. You are appointing a parliamentary Secretary to a Cabinet Minister. These are Cabinet Ministers that you have been talking about in so light and flippant a fashion". It is true that the Bill calls them Members of the Executive. It is true that under rolling devolution they are anything but Cabinet Ministers in that they are not bound by Cabinet responsibility, but these are Cabinet Ministers and therefore each of them must have a Parliamentary Secretary. The Bill appears to be limited to the singular where it says "a person to assist".
There is more in this provision than meets the eye. What does not meet the eye is as difficult to refer to without giving offence somewhere as are most matters that do not meet the eye. Perhaps I may approach my difficulty by recalling something of great interest that was disclosed to the House in the previous debate by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison). You may not recall it, Mr. Weatherill, but some Members of the Committee will recall how the hon. Member for Epping Forest read out from the daily notes of the Conservative Party for candidates in the 1979 general election. Those notes contained a remarkable hint or prediction, as it turned out to be. It was that after the election, should the Conservative Party win it, pressure would be brought to bear upon the Government not to implement the clear and plain meaning of what was in the manifesto but to introduce a different and more elaborate structure for the purposes of creating a new relationship with the Irish Republic.
I have not the exact words, but that remarkable prediction in writing is to be found in the document from which the hon. Gentleman quoted. How is it that a structure of this kind is seen by those who have at last got it as far as a Bill as being a means of bringing about coordination and moving towards amalgamation between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic? How does it do it?
In winding up the previous debate, innocent as one pleases, the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten) quoted section 1 of the 1973 Act and, hastily thumbing through the Bill, said that he could find nothing in it which repealed that. There is nothing on the face of the Bill which repeals it, but it is the purpose of the Bill to render it nugatory, just as much as it was the purpose of the Northern Ireland part of the 1920 Act for the better government of Ireland to create a means whereby through a Council of Ireland a Northern Ireland with home rule would amalgamate with a Southern Ireland with home rule.
Therefore, this Bill provides the means of getting the constitution rolling in the direction which is intended by those whose solicitude was anticipated by that remarkable person who wrote the daily notes back in 1979. To some of us who have watched the events of the last three years with increasing puzzlement that was a wonderful piece of documentation. It reminded me of my surprise that the Conservative Party, on coming into office, could in the Northern Ireland Office so suddenly have turned from full comprehension of the Unionist position to what was apparently total incomprehension. The answer was that it was waiting for them there and that among those who wrote the daily notes there was somebody who knew what was waiting for the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins).
I am not in any sense wandering from the content of the last portion of subsection 2, which is about exactly that. It is proposed that there will be an Assembly but it will be an Assembly which will be elected by a Unionist majority. One might ask, what is the good of that for the purpose of furthering a united Ireland? There is an Assembly, elected by Unionists, so presumably it reflects the Unionist point of view and the Unionist resistance to amalgamation with the Republic. Not so. There are 78 or 85 individuals who are in a position to be rendered amenable. No prediction is necessary for me to say that because the history of 1972, 1973 and 1974—

Mr. Molyneaux: And even earlier.

Mr. Powell: —and even earlier—affords sufficient illustration of what is meant. by being amenable if one is in an Assembly thus constituted.
One of the cruder forms of amenability is one to which we are not entire strangers in the House. This House in years gone by placed a limit upon the number of place holders who may sit in this assembly because it realised that the more place holders one has the more this assembly is likely to conform with the wishes of the Government of the day.
9.45 pm
What is relevant for the purposes of the operators is to frame an Assembly which can render itself and be rendered amenable by way of all kinds of inducements to take a point of view that would be consistent with and not diametrically opposed to the desires of those in power. For instance, there might be a proposition that the Assembly should in some way participate in an Anglo-Irish Parliament. I know that nothing is further from the mind of the Secretary of State.
The right hon. Gentleman is a candid and honest man, so that I know from his assurances that the idea of the Assembly being brought to participate—I use the most colourless word—in an Anglo—Irish parliamentary set-up is completely absent from his mind. I assure him that it is present in other minds. It is present in the minds of those who were in the Northern Ireland Office several years before he arrived in the Northern Ireland Office. It is present in the minds of those who foresaw the Bill before the Conservative Party was elected in 1979.
The Bill has been improved during the past two or three years. I do not wish in any way to decry the capabilities of the operators. After all, they work full time on this. Most of us have other things to think about in the world. They work full time on how to get Northern Ireland into the embraces of the Irish Republic. They have certainly


dotted the i's and crossed the t's in whatever draft was in the Northern Ireland Office when the present Administration came to power in 1979.
The purpose of the amendment, on which I trust my hon. Friends and I and, indeed, the Committee will have the opportunity of voting, is to ensure that the Assembly is not put into the position of being able to create lucrative posts and thus to strengthen the system of inducement that the Assembly itself, with its salaries, expenses, offices and emoluments of various kinds, will already have. That is already dangerously alive. We do not want to add to it by giving to the Assembly the invitation to multiply offices. I hope that we shall amend the subsection accordingly.

Mr. Scott: I in no sense intend to bring the debate to a close, but I believe that it might be useful, since we have had two substantial contributions, and a number of interesting points have been raised, if I intervene briefly.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Scott: With respect to my hon. Friend, I should like to make this point. I shall speak three sentences and then of course I shall give way to him.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), in a sense disappointingly, finished his contribution by raising once more the spectre of plots within the Northern Ireland Office and elsewhere, and seeing behind the Bill an aim that is certainly not in the minds of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or any others of us who are involved with the measure. The aim behind the Bill is simple. The right hon. Gentleman paid a tribute, which brought blushes even to my cheeks, to those who are responsible for the administration of the Northern Ireland Office.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend please give way now?

Mr. Scott: No one is more conscious than those of us who do the job of the shortcomings of the methods by which it is undertaken.
The right hon. Member for Down, South drew attention to the dual responsibilities that we have. We are seeking in the Bill to provide a form of government for Northern Ireland that will make it possible for the people of Northern Ireland more directly to assume the responsibility for tackling the political, economic and social problems that confront the Province. The sooner that it can be taken back into the hands of the people of Northern Ireland, the better. That is the aim of the Bill.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend now tell the Committee whether it is the Government's intention to move the closure immediately after he has resumed his seat? If it is, those of us who have remaining points to make will wish to know, so that we can put them to him.

Mr. Scott: I had hoped that in my introductory sentence I had made it clear that that was not the Government's intention. If I did not, I do so now.
I come to the points made in the two major speeches. The question of the composition of any 70 per cent. majority in the Assembly was raised. Other amendments will deal more specifically with that, and it would be better for a substantial reply to be produced then.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: The difficulty is that we do not know whether those amendments will be selected.

Mr. Scott: They are in the provisional selection.
The right hon. Member for Down, South mentioned the definite and indefinite article in relation to the Executive. The answer is simple and straightforward. Clause 1(2) speaks of proposals for "a Northern Ireland Executive" before it has come into existence. Section 8(2) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act, as substituted by paragraph 1 of schedule 2 to the Bill, speaks of "the Executive" in the context of the appointments having been made to it. It has therefore come into existence.
All that is at one with the Northern Ireland Constitution Act. Section 2(1)(b) of the Act speaks of "a Northern Ireland Executive" before it comes into existence. Section 8 speaks of "the Executive" once it is in operation. The terms of this measure are exactly in line with the terms of the Act in using the indefinite article before an Executive has come into existence and the definite article once it is in existence. They are both right in their contexts. It is a grammatical rather than a substantial point.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: We are specifically here dealing in terms of section 8 of the Act, and we are stuffing the ribs of an already existing constitution. The Minister may, upon consideration, feel that the relationship of the indefinite to the definite article in the 1973 Act is not the same as the relationship of the proposals here to the use of a pre-existing section 8 which makes provision for the Executive.

Mr. Scott: We are seeing two clear stages—when there is not an Executive and when one has been formed. I shall consider what the right hon. Gentleman says, but I do not see that it is a substantial point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) asked about members of the Executive from outside the Assembly. In the event of partial devolution there would be no power to make appointments from outside the Assembly, but once we had full devolution the situation would be as set out in section 8(5) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act, as amended by schedule 2 to the Bill.
Two persons from outside the Assembly could hold appointments under section 8, but only one of them could be the head of a Northern Ireland Department. It is clear what the basis for that would be. Once one had established a full Northern Ireland Executive under full devolution, a greater number of appointments would have to be made, and it might well be desirable to leave open the possibility of bringing into the Executive men and women from outside the Assembly who had special qualities to contribute.
The purpose of the subsection which is sought to be amended in this series of amendments is to provide the House of Commons, ultimately with the necessary information, with sufficiently substantial proposals, so that it can make a judgement on whether those proposals are acceptable and, in particular whether they meet the criterion of widespread acceptance throughout the community.
A number of questions were asked, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, about the detailed way in which the Executive might come into effect. In a sense, those questions are not for me. The whole basis of the Government's approach is to be as flexible as possible. We are not seeking to impose, to foreclose or to promote any particular solutions to the


problem. We are putting the ball firmly into the court of the Assembly, which will have been elected, and giving it the maximum flexibility to bring forward proposals which will receive widespread acceptance throughout the community and which will meet the needs that I outlined earlier.

Mr. Budgen: The Minister said that the purpose of these proposals was to give the House of Commons the information that it would need before it decided to grant further powers to a system of rolling devolution. Surely there is a difficulty here. When, for the sake of argument, a third of the powers have been devolved and a question arises whether a greater proportion should be further devolved, it will be possible to decide that second question only by considering how the first third has been used. It will not be possible to consider how the first third has been used unless questions can be asked and debates take place about how the first third is working in terms of the efficiency and justice with which the powers are being administered by the Assembly and whether, therefore, the House of Commons wishes to give a further tranche of powers to the devolved Administration.

Mr. Scott: This House will not lose interest in Northern Ireland affairs. General debates on Northern Ireland will continue. Of course, if the Assembly itself is not working well and the partial devolution already established is not working well, it is very unlikely that further proposals will come back to this House, but I cannot imagine that those hon. Members assembled here today and those who pay particular interest to Northern Ireland affairs will suddenly lose interest and not follow how the Assembly is working and how the partial devolution is working.

Mr. Budgen: Surely the essential difference between a power exercised by a devolved Assembly and a power exercised by a local authority is that a devolved Assembly is not subject to continual supervision and interference in the way that a local authority may be. It is one thing to devolve all powers in the way that all powers were devolved and handed over to Stormont, but if devolution is done on a rolling basis, surely there must be some consideration of how the already devolved powers are operating before further powers can be handed over.

Mr. Scott: When the House came to consider the report from the Assembly for the devolution of further powers, hon. Members here would raise the record of partial devolution—

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Scott: There is no question but that if hon. Members were debating proposals to devolve further powers to Northern Ireland they would not be able to raise the record of those Departments that had already been devolved—
It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: I beg to report that the Committee have made progress and ask leave to sit again.

Orders of the Day — Business of the House

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weathern1): Now the 10 o'clock business motion.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There appears to be some confusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) moved that we report progress and ask leave to sit again. Should we not dispose of that motion before proceeding to any other?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I had first to call the 10 o'clock business motion. The 10 o'clock business motion was in the name of the Prime Minister, and I asked the Whip to move the motion in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The 10 o'clock business motion in the Prime Minister's name, when put by you, was opposed by a number of hon. Members. I submit that the intention of the House was to come to a decision on it in the normal manner.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I accept, and the Committee accepts, that there was some confusion when I called the Prime Minister's motion. In order to avoid any confusion, we should go through the motions again.

Mr. Powell: Can the business motion be put after 10 o'clock?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is the moment of interruption. I call upon the Whip to move the 10 o'clock business motion.

Motion made, and Question put,
That, at this day', sitting, the Northern Ireland Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 22.

Division No. 178]
[10.3 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Cockeram, Eric


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Colvin, Michael


Arnold, Tom
Cope, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Costain, SirAlbert


Banks, Robert
Crouch, David


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dorrell, Stephen


Beith, A. J.
Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.


Benyon, Thomas(A'don)
Dover, Denshore


Benyon, W.(Buckingham)
Dunn, Robert(Dartford)


Berry, HonAnthony
Eggar, Tim


Best, Keith
Elliott, SirWilliam


Bevan, David Gilroy
Eyre, Reginald


Blackburn, John
Fairgrieve, SirRussell


Blaker, Peter
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Boscawen, HonRobert
Fisher, SirNigel


Bottomley, Peter(W'wich W)
Fletcher, A.(Ed'nb'gh N)


Boyson, DrRhodes
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bright, Graham
Goodlard, Alastair


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Gow, Ian


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Brooke, HonPeter
Griffiths, E. (B'ySt. Edm'ds)


Brotherton, Michael
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Browne, John(Winchester)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hamilton, HonA.


Buck, Antony
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bulmer, Esmond
Hannam, John


Butler, HonAdam
Haselhurst, Alan


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hawkins, Paul


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hayhoe, Barney


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Henderson, Barry


Chapman, Sydney
Hogg, HonDouglas (Gr'th'm)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)






Hooson, Tom
RhysWilliams, SirBrandon


Horam, John
Ridley, HonNicholas


Howells, Geraint
Ridsdale, SirJulian


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)
Roper, John


Irvine, BryantGodman
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Jessel, Toby
Sainsbury, HonTimothy


JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey
Scott, Nicholas


Jopling, RtHonMichael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


King, RtHon Tom
Shaw, Michaelf(Scarborough)


Lang, Ian
Shersby, Michael


Lester, Jim(Beeston)
Silvester, Fred


Lyell, Nicholas
Smith, Tim(Beaconsfleld)


MacGregor, John
Speller, Tony


MacKay, John(Argyll)
Stevens, Martin


McNally, Thomas
Stewart, A.(ERenfrewshire)


Major, John
Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)


Marland, Paul
Stradling Thomas, J.


Marlow, Antony
Tapsell, Peter


Marten, RtHon Neil
Taylor, Teddy(S'endE)


Mather, Carol
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mawby, Ray
Thompson, Donald


Mawhinney, DrBrian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Townsend, CyrilD,(B'health)


Mellor, David
Viggers, Peter


Mills, Iain(Meriden)
Waddington, David


Moate, Roger
Wainwright, R.(Colne v)


Morgan, Geraint
Wakeham, John


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Waldegrave, HonWilliam


Myles, David
Wall, SirPatrick


Neale, Gerrard
Waller, Gary


Needham, Richard
Ward, John


Nelson, Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Newton, Tony
Wheeler, John


Normanton, Tom
Whitney, Raymond


Onslow, Cranley
Wickenden, Keith


Page, John(Harrow, West)
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Wolfson, Mark


Penhaligon, David
Young, SirGeorge(Acton)


Pollock, Alexander
Younger, RtHonGeorge


Prentice, RtHon Reg



Prior, RtHon James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Raison, RtHonTimothy
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Rhodes James, Robert
Mr. Selwyn Gummer.




NOES


Biggs-Davison, SirJohn
Molyneaux, James


Body, Richard
Murphy, Christopher


Braine, SirBernard
Paisley, Rev Ian


Brown, Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Budgen, Nick
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cranborne, Viscount
Skinner, Dennis


Dunlop, John
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Farr, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Goodhart, SirPhilip
Winterton, Nicholas


Gorst, John



Lawrence, Ivan
Tellers for the Noes:


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Mr. William Ross and


McQuade, John
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.

Questions accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland Bill

Again Considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the amendmentent be made.

Mr. Farr: On a point of order,
Mr. Weatherill. I Wonder Whether you can help the committee. Can you explain the situation relating to motion put from the Government Bench that we report progress? I gather that the question was put to the House and was carried with general acclaim. So far as I am aware, it was never withdrawn. In those circumstances, can you give us some guidance as to what we are doing here now and why we are still in Committee?

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Perhaps I can help the Committee. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has been here for a very long time. He should know that this normally happens during a Committee stage. The Government Whip reported progress on my behalf and I then called the 10 o'clock business motion. That is the normal form.

Mr. Scott: I shall bring my remarks fairly rapidly to a close.
I reiterate that clause 1(2) meets the requirement to allow the Assembly maximum scope to make proposals in a form that will best enable it to achieve agreement, with the requirement that the proposals must be clear and specific enough for the Government and ultimately this House to form a view on whether they should lead to devolution. Proposals which did not include provision for composing an Executive or headships of Departments would be too vague to merit serious consideration and would not provide a secure basis for devolving powers.
I suggest that those who are most suspicious of devolution should above all wish clause 1(2) to be retained, as without it, at least in theory, devolution might take place without agreement on these crucial matters.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister has been very clear in his reference to schedule 2 and the provisions of its first paragraph. My difficulty—I may not be alone in this—is in seeing what kind of thing could further be specified in relation to the composition and appointments than is already specified in that paragraph. Incidentally, the Minister said, by a slip of the tongue, I think, that this gave the Assembly the "opportunity". In fact—and this makes it more difficult—we are mandating it to do something. That being so, we should surely be able to give ourselves an indication of the kind of thing that it might wish to do.

Mr. Scott: It is very much for the Assembly to settle these matters. The proposals need not nominate individuals for particular posts, although I suspect that in practice the Assembly is likely to come forward with the names of individuals. That is certainly possible. Alternatively, however, it might come forward with proposals which included a breakdown between the parties of the posts to be filled. All of those outcomes are possible. It is for the Assembly itself to decide what the proposals should be.

Mr. Powell: The Minister is being very patient and I am most grateful, but how could these once-for-all proposals by the Assembly for general devolution or, in


the second case, rolling devolution, be so specific as to relate to the composition of a particular Assembly, or even more, to an individual? If this is really intended to force the Assembly to make such recommendations, should not the Committee think again about the desirability of this, as recommendations of that kind would clearly be undesirable and inconsistent with the whole procedure?

Mr. Scott: Personally, I should be reluctant for the Committee to think again about that, as I believe that the more flexibility that there is in the hands of the Assembly the better.
The right hon. Gentleman says that in a sense the proposals provide a basis for an enduring devolved system of government. That may be. The original proposals would provide either for names or for some other breakdown for the immediately devolved Administration, but provisions would also be included in the proposals as to what would happen when the individuals changed or when further consideration had to be given to the composition or basis of some Executive or the breakdown of headships of Departments.
It is possible for the Assembly to come forward with such proposals. That is the basis on which the Government have produced the proposals. That is why we are opposed to all these amendments, which would in their different ways place obstacles in the path of a return to a devolved administration. It is integral to the scheme of the Bill that proposals for full or partial devolution must include recommendations on the composition of Northern Ireland administration. The appointments clearly fall to the Secretary of State to make, but it is the views of the Assembly which we would seek and which would be taken into careful account.
Only if we are prepared to give the Assembly that flexibility can we end up with proposals that are likely to endure in the special situation of Northern Ireland. The obligations on the Assembly imposed by clause 1(2) are the minimum necessary for practical purposes and are completely compatible with our aim of providing a flexible framework within which the people of Northern Ireland can create a workable form of government in the interests of the common good. I therefore urge the Committee to reject amendments Nos. 7, 119 and 120, which would serve to make the possibility of devolution yet more remote.
It is hard to believe that some right hon. and hon. Members can take exception to allowing the Assembly to recommend the appointment of persons to assist the heads of devolved Departments, yet that is what the last pair of amendments seek under partial devolution. However, the Committee will immediately notice that the power to appoint such persons in the event of partial devolution is expressed in purely permissive terms. In practice, no such appointments would be made unless the Assembly so recommended. Members of the Assembly will be under no obligation to make such proposals. Therefore, this provision is also in accord with the general philosophy of the Bill and is designed to give the maximum possible freedom to the Assembly in its consideration of a suitable devolved structure.
Those are matters for the Assembly to decide for itself, and I trust accordingly that the Committee will reject the amendments and allow the Assembly the greatest possible freedom in its task of forming proposals for devolution.

Rev. Martin Smyth: My contribution arises particularly from the response of the Minister, who has been arguing that the amendment should be rejected because it robs the Bill and the proposed Assembly of flexibility. If I understood his argument correctly, it is that the flexibility is that one can have the Assembly if one does what the Minister asks. That does not seem to be flexible at all, even if names were presented to the Minister. If the Minister liked those people, he would appoint them. That does not give flexibility to the Assembly and certainly does not give great hope of the prospects of the Assembly having power devolved to it.
I am learning much in the House. From my experience in the Select Committee I thought that Ministers would respond to some of the points that were made and that we would get difficulties out of the road and make progress. The amendments and this part of the Bill deal with the composition of the Executive or an Executive—whatever Executive. It is at this point that we shall get into difficulties fast, yet I must admit that the Government have been providing some object lessons to us in power-sharing because we have a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office who claims to be a citizen of another State. I know that the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) has proposed certain forms of government on the American pattern that would help us, he believes, to move forward to devolved government in Northern Ireland. I wonder if the Government, in their examination of those proposals, have learnt from their distinguished visitor today that a person ceases to have citizenship when he takes a passport from another State.
Looking at the matter in more detail, it seems to me that we are back to the old scenario. In my basic vocation, these are what are termed travellers. These are sermons brought out of the filing cabinet, dusted and used again when someone is asked to speak in certain places. I have followed these debates for over 10 years. It seems that there are some in the Northern Ireland Office who have that philosophy. I am reminded of the preacher who, when asked on a famous harvest occasion what he was doing, replied, "Bringing out a traveller and putting a few stalks of corn through it."
The proposals before the Committee seem to be the old proposals with a little titivation to try to con the people of Ulster to go in the direction in which they have said they will not go. I would have been happier if in the previous debate the Paymaster General and chairman of the Conservative Party had been able to say to the Committee who was the guide who forecast the problems affecting the Government. This might have helped hon. Members to understand the impelling motives that produced the Bill, which I can guarantee, following the response of the Minister a short time ago, will founder on the rock of invincible Unionism. It is on that level that all the theories have to be tested.
At an earlier stage the argument against devolution presented by some was that a legislative assembly was contrary to the interests of central government. There are those in the past who have argued that in the Union's interest it never worked like that. Historically, the answer is that it did not, because Ulster was governed by Unionists. The Bill is dedicated to making sure that Unionists, even elected by their people in a democratic franchise, will not govern Ulster. Even though the franchise may have been geared a little to break the

monolith and made different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom by the introduction of proportional representation to avoid a strong Unionist position, the people nevertheless returned pro-Union candidates.
Now we are told that, even if by some miracle the proposals have 70 per cent. acceptance, it will not be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government if the Bill does not carry community support. It seems that the "shalls" and the "mays" have to take account of the reality of the Ulster situation as we in Ulster examine the realities of the powers against us. According to my reading of the script, we may have a new choreographer in the Northern Ireland office, but the dance is the same
All I would say is that it takes two to tango, and, if the House is serious in bringing devolved Government back to Northern Ireland, it must look more seriously at these proposals, because they will not work. If, in the past, there have been those who have prophesied what the Conservative Party might face in Government, and have been proved right, I wish to put it on the record tonight that without a deeper consideration of the principle involved in this part of the Bill in particular, it will not pass the test of public opinion in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Budgen: It was generous of the Minister to have said early in his speech that the Government had no immediate intention to move a closure on the debate, and that he would allow us the unusual privilege of replying to his remarks. It makes of our debate a reality, and he was helpful in replying to some of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The right hon. Gentleman was dealing at one stage with what might happen if a part of the Executive lost the confidence of the Assembly. The Minister replied only shortly to that.
I preface my remarks by saying that I was disappointed by the reply that was given earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten), because it is important to know the Government's attitude towards Stormont. I often agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) who says in our discussions on Northern Ireland that he does not want a return to Stormont. Nor do I, and probably for the same reasons as the hon. Member. However, the Government have not given their general view about the desirability of a return to Stormont.
Leaving that aside, whatever else one might say about Stormont, it survived for 50 years, and for at least the greater part of that 50 years it must have retained the broad support of the people of Ulster. I suggest that that was because it was plain for all to see that power and responsibility resided with Stormont, and that those at Stormont, and especially the Cabinet Ministers, knew that they could not pass the buck to Westminster and blame Westminster in the event of their being either unjust or incompetent. It is plain from these proceedings that the sheer instability of these proposals means that the buck will never clearly be settled upon anybody.
I was hoping, as I listened to my hon. Friend the Minister, that he would point to paragraph 61 of the White Paper, because that gives, at some considerable length, the answer for which the right hon. Member for Down, South was asking. It makes it plain that this is not to be a devolved Administration in the way that Stormont was a devolved Administration. Nor is it to be local government in the way that, for instance, the actions of the Wolverhampton district council may be debated in the


House and may be the subject of questions at environment Question Time. None the less, from paragraph 61 it is obvious that at all stages the Secretary of State retains supervisory powers.
I hope that the Committee will forgive me if we look for a moment at paragraph 61:
If the Executive lost the broad support in the Assembly which had led to devolution the Secretary of State would have to consult the parties in the Assembly to see how that support could best be re-established or whether another Executive could be formed which commanded the necessary support. If no such Executive could readily be formed, there would be a number of options with regard to the Executive and the Assembly.
Before we move towards that "number of options", may I say that it is all very well for the Secretary of State to talk about the manifold examples of flexibility within this constitution, but a constitution is surely a framework—something which sets the parameters within which people know that they can manoeuvre. To say that it is all flexibility is rather like somebody who has no standards of behaviour of any sort saying, "My attitude to everything is always pragmatic."

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: My hon. Friend talks about standards of behaviour, but how many times has he visited Northern Ireland?

Mr. Budgen: I think, about six times.

Mr. Rhodes James: Over how many years?

Mr. Budgen: Over about the past eight years.
As I hope I made plain on Second Reading, I do not suggest for a moment that I come to the debate with a detailed knowledge of Northern Ireland. Nor, if I may say so, do I expect that the Secretary of State would argue that about himself. All of us, as I am sure would my hon. Friend, would approach the problems with the same humility.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: If Northern Ireland is to remain part of the United Kingdom, which is the implication and the intention of the Bill, we are debating the constitution of the United Kingdom. Every hon. Member is equally entitled to hold a view on it.

Mr. Budgen: That is what I thought. I believed that those who were in favour of a United Kingdom said that for better or for worse Back Benchers provide a sort of jury system and on broad issues can offer their collective opinion upon such matters. I thought that it was not just a question of looking to those who had specialist knowledge, because the very weight of detail in the specialist's mind may make him least able to see the general problem.
Of course, I am an Englishman and my detailed knowledge of Northern Ireland is not great, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) would no more suggest that that is a fundamental weakness in my argument than say that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is incapacitated in carrying out his high office because he too is an Englishman.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does my hon. Friend recall the debates on Welsh and Scottish devolution? I am sure that he does. Does he ever recall an hon. Member asking any other hon. Member how many times he had been to Wales and how many times he had been to Scotland?

Mr. Budgen: I do not remember that. I quite understand that some hon. Members do not wish to see the

United Kingdom continue, would regard it as most important that each individual section of the United Kingdom should be ruled by those who come from it, and support the philosophy of breaking up the United Kingdom. I know that my arguments will be unacceptable to them. I do not seek to base my arguments on the arrogance of great intelligence or tremendous knowledge.

Mr. Gorst: I urge my hon. Friend to accept the point made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The specious suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) is not to be entertained. After all, my hon. Friend might equally ask my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge whether he has ever been to the Falkland Islands. Of course the answer is "No", and the question is totally irrelevant.

Mr. Rhodes James: As the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister dealing with the Falkland Islands, I was involved. However, the point is that Northern Ireland is very near to and is part of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend makes speeches denouncing a perfectly reasonable proposal—[Interruption.]—and I object to that because of his lack of involvement

Mr. Budgen: I understand that my hon. Friend objects to what I am doing. I fear that I shall have to continue without his support. That, of course, is sad, but I hope that I shall not, as a result, be entirely incapacitated in my task.

Mr. Michael Brown: Does my hon. Friend accept that he has still not succeeded with the kernel of his argument? When my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) mentioned the Falkland Islands, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) argued that he knew more about the Falkland Islands because he was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister involved. Will my hon. Friend reiterate yet again the crucial point that, although I and several hundred other hon. Members are not Parliamentary Private Secretaries to the Ministers concerned, we have all spoken at great length on that subject? However, none of us feels that we cannot speak on that subject just because we have not been to the place under discussion?

Mr. Budgen: I am the last person to wish to undermine in any way the important role of those who have the honour to be Parliamentary Private Secretaries. I quite understand the importance of that role. It is extremely kind of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge to remain in the Chamber while I speak. It may well have been unwise of the Wolverhampton, South-West electorate to elect me, but I am here. Although I have never had the honour of being a Parliamentary Private Secretary, I shall offer a few diffident words about the scheme. Those who believe that specialist knowledge of Ireland is pre-eminently important should remember that when I was interrupted I was talking not about what is happening in Ireland now, but about the proposals for Northern Ireland if rolling devolution becomes effective.
I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge that I was simply saying that my consideration of paragraph 61 of the White Paper—which is far less intelligent than my hon. Friend is capable of, from his high position—revealed that through the Secretary of State the Government would retain considerable power over the Assembly. When my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge was good enough to intervene I was not talking


about the past in Northern Ireland but was inviting him to apply his imagination to the future. I believe that the second sentence deals with what would happen if the Executive lost broad support in the Assembly.
10.45 pm
The paragraph says:
If no such Executive could readily be formed, there would be a number of options with regard to the Executive and the Assembly. As regards the Executive he would be able to invite the existing Executive to continue on a caretaker basis for up to six months, or to appoint, again for a maximum of six months, a caretaker administration of his own choosing whose members need not come from the Assembly; or resume himself the powers which had been devolved.
He could set up a puppet Executive, or he could exercise those powers himself. If he set up a puppet Executive—some form of quango—one might even have the undesirable position that occurs, for instance, with the Property Services Agency, where one has a State organisation that is not a Ministry or directly subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
The Minister will say, "That is a good example of the wonderful flexibility of our proposals." It is an example of flexibility but it is also an example of instability. The people of Ulster will not know where they stand and will not be able to say even to the leader of the old Stormont Executive Lord Brookeborough, or to whomever it may be, "It is your fault." It will be a State in which the power constantly changes between the Secretary of State and those who are from time to time leaders of the Assembly.
The paragraph continues:
The Assembly could be prorogued; or returned to the original scrutinising, consultative and advisory functions, without the powers conferred by the devolution order; or dissolved so that fresh elections could be held. The objective would be to sustain or reconstitute a devolved administration.
When a crisis occurs, are the people of Northern Ireland not entitled to know whether the Assembly is to be sustained or reconstituted? "Yes," says the Minister. "That is another sign of the wonderful flexibility." Or should it be described as another sign of the uncertainty and instability of the organisation?
The important words of the paragraph are these:
But in the last resort he would have the option of reverting to direct rule in the form which now exists. The same principles would apply should arrangements for partial devolution lose the necessary support in the Assembly.
That brings me to the point to which the Minister replied when I intervened in his speech. On the one hand we hear clearly from the Secretary of State that once power has been devolved there will be residual supervisory power in the House. Let us take the case in which the House has decided to devolve to the Assembly in Ulster, for instance, powers that enable that Assembly to run district hospitals. Once the district hospitals are being run by the Assembly, no residual power over those hospitals could be exercised here.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) asked whether we are to return to the pre-1979 system with no questions being asked about what is happening in Northern Ireland. No questions would be asked about district hospitals. We could form a view about how they were being run from reading the Ulster newspapers, but we could not ask direct questions or directly debate the issue.
Although this is theory, it is not illusion. It might be suggested that the devolved Assembly had powers to run mental hospitals. Before allowing that, the House might like to know the Assembly's track record in running district hospitals, how efficient the Executive was and whether it appointed the best person to the job or made sectarian appointments. We could not ask how it dealt with district hospitals. The power would have been devolved.
The proposals will not have the dignity and certainty of the old Stormont arrangement, for all its defects. Because of the so-called flexibility, we shall build a system that will leave the people of Ulster uncertain where real power resides. The real power will be with the Secretary of State. He will have residual powers over the appointments of personnel within the Executive and residual powers to withdraw devolved functions back to the House. The tradegy is that in the exercise of those powers, especially under clause 5(3), we should not have the right to question the way in which a devolved power was being carried out.
It is all very well to talk of flexibility. In the end a constitution must have parameters. There must be certainty about where power and responsibility ultimately lie. The so-called flexible proposals merely set the scene for confusion and muddle, for blaming Parliament and for doing something to break up the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gorst: My hon. Friend is saying that the Government are asking for a blank cheque. They will write in no details and give no one in the House the opportunity to put in a figure or a nought.

Mr. Budgen: The Government are not only asking for a blank cheque. As Margaret van Hattem said in an article to which the Secretary of State hardly referred, the Government proposal leaves any Secretary of State in a position to horse-trade all the way. It is one thing for the Minister of Argiculture, Fisheries and Food to tell farmers that they cannot have quite as much as they want on the sugar beet but that they can have a bit more on the oats or wheat. In constitutional matter the horse trading cannot be left as flexible as that. There must be an element of certainty.
The delightful proposition that where there is flexibility anything can be done will give rise to conflict between the Assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament. It will ensure that the people of Ulster are seen to be markedly different from those in the remainder of the United Kingdom. Perhaps we shall create an Assembly whose Members, in their understandable frustration, have a sense of impotence and anger and where, because they do not have clearly defined powers or the obligation to tax and to spend, or because they can always blame someone else, the powers of obstruction and vituperation that we Englishmen see in some people from Ulster will be enhanced and improved. They will seem to many English people to be a different race. With the assistance of the Bill, if it becomes an Act, they will, sadly, do much to separate themselves from the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I begin by adding my congratulations to you, Mr. Dean, on the assumption of your responsibilities and sympathise with you on embarking on this occasion, which is likely to be more lengthy than most. We have listened in Committee to much brilliant negativism and to much clever and totally destructive criticism of the Government's proposals. We are now discussing a set of amendments that go to the heart


of the Bill, because they propose to divorce the devolution of legislative responsibility from that of executive responsibility and to remove that part of the Bill that would confer executive devolution upon Northern Ireland.
I have not yet heard a word from the many right hon. and hon. Members who have addressed themselves to the subject, with the honourable exception of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), about the long agony of Northern Ireland and how it might be brought to an end. It is sad that the House of Commons, after all that has happened, should treat the Secretary of State's proposals in an almost completely destructive way and not attempt to improve those proposals and make them work.
In 1975 a White Paper appeared called " The Government of Northern Ireland—A Society Divided".

Mr. Michael Brown: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Williams: I shall not give way just yet. The society has been divided from that day to this. The Secretary of State is attempting—one must give him credit for it—to find a way in which that divided society can be brought to work together once again. I see no threat to the United Kingdom greater than that of continuing decline in the economy of Northern Ireland, which will drive its young people away and promote the feeling that, for all its political genius, the United Kingdom Parliament has not found any solution. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to devote at least a little of their time to that consideration. [Interruption.] I shall not keep the Committee for as long as many others who have spoken in the debate and I shall certainly not give way to that sort of remark.
The heart of the Bill is in clause 1(2). It suggests that there should be real responsibility along with legislative devolution, and it is correct to link the two together. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to his support for the proposal that there should be devolution of legislation to the Northern Ireland Assembly because he clearly believes that there is not enough time in the United Kingdom Parliament to scrutinise and debate issues of importance to Northern Ireland. That is obviously true. We do not discuss in the House, nor is there time to do so, details of the individual issues that affect much of the population of Northern Ireland.
11 pm
We must honestly say that it is not likely that there will be adequate time for that kind of scrutiny. Yet that kind of scrutiny is very important to the development of democracy in Northern Ireland. To divorce the power to scrutinise and monitor from any power of Executive control and responsibility would be a dangerous exercise. The Assembly could rapidly become the very talking shop to which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) referred when he said that there were great dangers of powers without responsibility. The likelihood is that the Assembly would simply find its scapegoat in this Parliament. That also would not be good for the future integrity of the United Kingdom. What the Government recognise is that they must build on trust between the different religious communities. Without that there is no real future for a return to political responsibility in Northern Ireland.
I draw attention to part of the clause about which the Government might say another word if they respond to the

debate on this group of amendments. I welcome what I understand to be a change. Under subsection (2), together with section 8 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, the Government wish to satisfy themselves that individual appointees as heads of Department would be subjected to the test of acceptability to a wide section of the community, as only the Northern Ireland Executive collectively was subjected to that test under the terms of section 8 of the 1973 Act. That is an advance which should be welcome to the Committee, if I am correct in interpreting it as I have done.
Am I right in assuming that schedule 2, which should be taken together with clause 1 for this purpose, means that those individual appointees could also be discussed with the Assembly and that the Government would commit themselves to widespread consultation with the parties? If the Minister were able to say something more about that consultation I would welcome it and it would be helpful to the proceedings on the Bill.

Mr. Proctor: The right hon. Lady referred, as did my hon. Friend the Minister, to schedule 2. I presume that she has read schedule 2. If she has, she will have seen the answer to her question in paragraph (7), where it says that
the Secretary of State shall so far as practicable consult with the parties represented in the Assembly and take into account any proposals submitted to him under section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 1982.
Is that not the answer to the question?

Mrs. Williams: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I referred precisely to the fact that there was reference to consultation with the parties in the Assembly. I ask the Government to say a little more about those five significant and important words. While I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's help, I should be grateful if he would allow me to puruse the matter a little further and get more enlightenment from the Government.
The next issue concerns a matter to which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred, perfectly properly, at considerable length. He was talking about what would happen if an individual head of a Northern Ireland Department were to lose the confidence of the Assembly. Again, taking schedule 2 together with clause 1, has the Minister given further thought to the possibility of dividing responsibility for an individual Department and any loss of confidence in the head of that Department from the general experiment in devolution?
As the Minister knows, my party is worried about putting the entire experiment at risk if one head of Department in one area were to lose the confidence of the Assembly, conceivably because he as an individual was believed by the Assembly not to be competent to carry out his responsibilities. In my view, it would be perfectly reasonable to amend schedule 2 or clause 5 so as to allow a division between loss of confidence in an individual Department and loss of confidence by the Assembly in devolution of responsibility of an executive nature as a general issue.
The third question that I want to ask the Minister relates to responsibility to the Assembly. No doubt when we come to clause 5 we shall discuss the extent to which the Assembly could be involved in demonstrating the acceptability of the presiding officer and of other officers of the Assembly to the Assembly itself. Again, it may be worth considering whether the heads of Departments, after consultation between the Secretary of State and the


Assembly, might go through some procedure in which they were shown to be acceptable, on a vote of confidence by the Assembly itself. I agree that the closer the links between the Assembly and the heads of Departments, the more effective the intended devolution will be.
These are my questions, and, if the Government cannot reply to them now, I hope that they will do so at a later stage. I reiterate that the Government alone have put forward proposals that attempt to build bridges between the communities and to create confidence and trust, without which Northern Ireland will be regarded as a part of the United Kingdom which cannot share the full political responsibility that other parts of the United Kingdom enjoy. The Government are making an honourable and gallant attempt to fill the political vacuum that exists in Northern Ireland. Without that attempt the United Kingdom will be more at risk that it is today.

Mr. Proctor: It is no criticism of the Chair—and no exaggeration, either—to say that I have been seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Dean, since 27 May, when the previous debate commenced on the earlier group of amendments. Indeed, I believe that it predates your appointment to the Chair, and I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair and the onerous duties that you bear.
This is also the first opportunity that I have had to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for making available in good time to members of the Committee who asked copies of the notes on clauses. They were gratefully received. It was at my suggestion that the notes were made available, and I believe that they will considerably help our deliberations. Indeed, had the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) had a copy of the briefing notes before she made her speech, or had she had an opportunity to read the part on schedule 2, she might have found the answer to some of her questions.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members during this and the preceding debates mentioned manifestos and briefing notes—of a different Kind—to candidates. The Opposition mentioned their proposals, too. I shall restrain myself by referring only to my own election manifesto at the last general election. I said:
We must strengthen Parliament and its sovereignty if we are to defend our people and society. For this reason I am opposed to the creation of rival parliaments in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Europe.
Tonight we are discussing the creation of just such a rival Parliament or Assembly. My opposition to it in principle stems from my views at the time leading up to the last general election. I then made my views clear on the matter to my electors so they will not be surprised that I speak behind the principles that I inserted into my election manifesto in May 1979.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred to the partial quotation that was given by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) on an earlier group of amendments. Although it was a partial quotation, it was such an important one that those parts which have already been quoted deserve a fresh airing. I shall read a little more of the quotation because the Committee may be interested in the further remarks. The quotation comes from Daily Notes No. 9, 25 April 1979, on Northern Ireland. It states:

The next Government will come under considerable pressure to launch a new high-powered political initiative on Northern Ireland with the object of establishing another 'power-sharing' government in the Province which could pave the way for a federal constitution linking Ulster to the Irish Republic. The main political parties in Dublin have already drawn up their plans; and so have political representatives of the anti-unionist minority in Ulster itself. It is clear from the comments made by Mr. Tip O'Neill, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, during his visit to Ireland last week, that the Irish-American community is ready for a war of words with the next Government (in which, no doubt, it will be assisted by Mr. John Pardoe"—
no doubt the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) will be interested to hear his name—
who rushed to endorse Mr. O'Neill's criticisms of British policy).
That is a longer quote than the one my hon. Friend gave, but it was worth while to give it. What was forecast in the quotation has come about. To what extent it has come about through external pressures from Dublin, from Washington, from the Liberal Party or the SDP, or a mixture of them, one does not know. But the political initiative has come about through our own hand, through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introducing the Bill. It is not the first initiative of the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) took an initiative along lines which would run counter to what was set out in the briefing notes. When he was Secretary of State he also introduced similar proposals for a political initiative. They were doomed to failure. The proposals before us today will be doomed to failure.

Mr. Molyneaux: Following the revelations by the hon. Gentleman and by his hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) of this significant and startling information for which they have now produced documentary proof, with hindsight does the hon. Gentleman share my fear that transatlantic pressure was possibly applied during the top-level three-day meeting in London, which lasted for three days, between senior Cabinet Ministers and their opposite numbers in Washington.

Mr. Proctor: The hon. Gentleman obviously has more information about these matters than I have. I accept his fear that just such a deliberation took place with just such the outcome as is conditioned and set forth in the Bill. I am grateful to him for wisely putting that view and fear on the record.
The amendments seek to amend clause 1(2). I have read the amendments carefully and I have a preference for amendment No. 7, moved so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, which seeks to remove subsection (2). That would be ideal, but, if that proves impossible, there are various amendments that seek to improve the subsection. If the Committee divides upon them subsequently, I have a mind to vote for them. My hon. Friend the Minister did his best to answer the questions raised, but I do not believe that he met the approval of those who have been critical of the subsection.
I have considerable doubt about the powers that have been given to the Secretary of State to receive proposals from the Assembly if and when it is established and to make appointments on Her Majesty's behalf. I have doubts about the vague provisions for dismissal of appointees. I have a few questions to ask about the number of heads of department and assistants who might be appointed. I wish to comment briefly on partial devolutions and the powers


that might be split up within a Department, and the effect that that might have on the appointment of heads of Department.
It is necessary to look at three or four different parts of the Bill at once to understand the thread of that which is being proposed. Subsection (2) must be read in conjunction with schedule 2 and section 8(3) to the 1973 Act. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has said that the purpose of schedule 2 is to give the Secretary of State greater flexibility in dealing with rolling devolution. May I press him about the formula for the maximum number of persons who may hold those appointments? They are set out in what will become the new section 8(3).
The subsection provides that the maximum number of persons holding appointments under section 8 is 13. Thus, referring to the briefing notes that were so kindly provided, it says:
Thus if required, there could be a chief executive member, Heads of the Northern Ireland Departments (which are expected to number 6 shortly) and deputies to those Heads; but there would be no need to proceed in this way. Under the Constitution Act, as amended by Section 1 of the Northern Ireland Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1973 the maximum size of the executive is 11, although the maximum size of the administration as a whole (which includes the Executive) is 15.
It concludes:
The figure of 13 is considered a sensible maximum bearing in mind the size of the Assembly, but that figure can be increased by statutory instrument subject to negative resolution at Westminster.
I do not think that the Minister told the Committee why that figure is now 13 whereas in the 1973 Act it was 12. There has obviously been some reason for increasing it—no doubt a good one. I am not convinced by the briefing note as to the reason for it. Nor am I convinced by the Minister's response about numbers. I might have been less critical of the provision had the Bill provided for a reduction from 12 to 11, or preferably less. But as it proposes to increase the number and presumably the cost of salaries will increase as there will be an added administrative cost of employing those people, there should be a clear reason for increasing the number.
The briefing notes also refer to two persons at any time holding appointments under this section who may not have been appointed from among Members of the Assembly, but they say that not more than one shall be a head of a Northern Ireland Department.
I am not convinced by the Minister's answer to that and as to why it is necessary to go wider than the membership of the Assembly to appoint heads of Departments. What is the motivation behind that? If the people to whom he referred had expertise but were not Members of the Assembly, presumably they could stand in the elections. The expertise would then be available to the Assembly and to the Secretary of State when he comes to appointments.
I understand that those people, who may not be Members of the Assembly but who might be appointed heads of Departments, could sit and speak in the Assembly but not vote there. I am not sure that that is a sensible way to proceed. Perhaps the Minister could advise me whether I am right in my assumptions.
I tried to deal with the points raised by the right hon. Member for Crosby about the consultations that might take place with regard to appointments under subsections (5) and (6), which are taken into account in subsection (7) of the schedule.

Mr. Budgen: Surely the persons appointed to the Executive by the Secretary of State would be in the same position as co-opted members of a county council. They would be able to take part in the deliberations, they might be able to carry out executive functions, but they would not be able to vote.

Mr. Proctor: My hon. Friend has probably set it absolutely right. Following his line of thought, I cannot think that any self-respecting county councillor would place such a person in an important or influential position such as the chairmanship of a committee, which might be the nearest equivalent. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his help on that point.
Section 8(6) empowers the Secretary of State at any time to make appointments that do not comply with the requirements of section 8(4) if it is not possible to form an Administration that command widespread acceptance throughout the community and all but two of those members were drawn from the Assembly.
The briefing note, however, says rather disturbingly of the new section 8(6):
This provision ensures that if, after a breakdown in the arrangements for devolved government in Northern Ireland, it is thought that it is worthwhile persisting with attempts to continue devolution, it can continue without the need to revert to direct rule while attempts are made to form a fresh Executive drawn from the Assembly.
The briefing note euphemistically describes this as a "breathing space". It seems to me to be a period for "wheeler dealing" in smoke-filled corridors well out of sight of any public scrutiny or indeed any scrutiny by this House.

Mr. Molyneaux: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me a second time. I think that the Secretary of State can clarify that point. I recall that in a discussion—it was not a private discussion, so I am not breaking any confidences—he was asked by one of our team what would happen if the Executive came a cropper. The Secretary of State's view—one now sees the reflection of this in the Bill—was that the whole structure would not collapse. It would be demolished only down to Assembly level. When asked what would be the next step, he explained that there would be an interval during which the parties could attempt to cobble together a 70 per cent. majority to enable someone else to put the show on the road.

Mr. Proctor: The hon. Gentleman substitutes the term "cobbling together" for my "wheeler dealing", but I think that there is no difference between our views of what would happen in such a situation.
I wish to push the Minister to say something about the suspension or dismissal of heads of Department if the Secretary of State so wished. Can he assure the Committee that this will be possible under the arrangements proposed? I believe that the Government's intention is that, if such a position were reached despite the wheeler dealing and cobbling together of a new formula,
In that event the Secretary of State can appoint a United Kingdom Minister to discharge executive powers in Northern Ireland.
Unless I have misunderstood it, that seems to be a reversion to the present position. I hope that the Minister will confirm that if we were minded to go down this route there would be some way in which we can retrieve the


situation. I hope that he will describe the ways in which we could then claw back what we might put wrong in the Bill.
11.30 pm
I should like to comment on partial devolution of powers of an individual Department. I do not believe that that has been dealt with by any of the Committee. Therefore, I should like to probe a little on that point to find out how it spins back on to the appointment of Departmental heads. I am again indebted to the Minister for the briefing notes to help me to go down the path. They state:
Under subsection (1), devolution can be 'full' or 'partial'. Either all the legislative and executive powers formerly devolved in 1974 by virtue of the Constitution Act can be devolved in a single transfer of responsibilities; or only certain functions can be devolved in the first instance. Proposals for partial devolution can be in respect of all or some of the responsibilities of given departments.
The briefing notes state further:
It would be preferable if the Assembly agreed that all the functions of a given department should be devolved. Though if the agreement on devolution was critically dependent on some but not all of a department's functions being devolved that would be possible; in that event, the existing departmental structure would need to be changed before devolution so that when devolution took place it would be by reference to all the functions of a particular department.
That is in clause 2(1)(b).
It may be decided by the Assembly that, for example, for the sake of argument, the Department of Education should have devolved powers but not all the devolved powers that are currently held by my hon. Friend the Minister dealing with education in Northern Ireland. It may be agreed that it should have secondary education and higher education but not primary education. Two thirds of the Department can be devolved presumably to a head of that Department, who would look after it. What happens to the other third? Are we saying that we might at the same time appoint and pay a head of Department for secondary education and higher education, but that a Minister of the Crown responsible to the House would still continue in being, responsible for primary education?
That is my reading of the Bill as it stands. If I am not correct, perhaps the Minister will tell me where I have gone wrong in reading through the Bills, Acts and briefing notes. I accept that it is a complicated matter. I may have followed a wrong route or taken a wrong decision, but I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister will put me right.
The right hon. Member for Crosby claims that none of my right hon. and hon. Friends has put forward sensible suggestions for improving the Bill. The right hon. Lady should accept that that is a sensible suggestion. It cannot be sensible to have two Ministers for education for Northern Ireland. That cannot be.
Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will pay some attention to that point. I have delayed the Committee for too long. I should be grateful for my hon. Friend's comments on my remarks.

Mr. Michael Brown: I rise to speak to this group of amendments because clause 1(2) raises some important issues. The Government, in drafting the subsection, have recognised that there is a problem in Northern Ireland. It is different from the rest of the United Kingdom. The aim

of all political parties in Parliament is to ensure that one party commends itself to the electorate and is returned to Westminster with an overall majority. Our constitution and electoral practice seek to assist that process—much to the annoyance of the minority parties, the Liberals and the Social Democrats—through a straightforward method of majority voting that the electorate understands. There is no proportional representation.
This is where the divergence begins. The subsection seeks to devise a scenario for Northern Ireland that is the exact reverse of what we, as politicians, seek to achieve for this part of the kingdom. A different electoral system has for some years been applied to certain elections in Northern Ireland. The subsection and, indeed, the clause as a whole seek to devise a situation in which it will be difficult, notwithstanding the wishes of the electorate, to have a group of politicians elected on a co-ordinated platform as happens when a political party is returned to power in this part of the kingdom. That is frustrated by the 70 per cent. test. I recognise that this is not the subject of the present debate. I mention it in passing because it colours the style in which subsection (2) is drafted.
Once the parties are elected to the new Assembly, the Bill seeks to ensure that it is difficult for a single party, with the largest group of Members, to govern and to express the democratic view of the people, especially over decisions to take on powers. This brings me to the heads of Departments. It is easy, listening to the debates, to forget that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom. I find myself sometimes falling into that habit, which I shall attempt to resist during the proceedings on the Bill.
Everything is done in this part of the kingdom to ensure that Ministers and their deputies are Members of Parliament. There appears to be some confusion over the part of the clause that deals with heads of Department in the new Executive. I should like to hear some reassurance from the Minister on this matter. The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) was emphatic that she should receive answers to her questions. I hope that I shall receive the same treatment. I am concerned that heads of Department or their deputies will not be accountable to the elected Assembly in the way that I, as a representative of my electorate in this part of the kingdom, expect Ministers to be accountable to hon. Members. That worries me. Therefore, the amendments that deal with the problem of the deputies will be important in the event that the first group of amendments do not find favour with the Committee.
I come back to the theme that was struck by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). He talked about the general structure and the Government's claim in favour of the subsection that it symbolised the flexibility of the Bill. In my view, that flexibility will be the Bill's undoing and, indeed, the Assembly's undoing. As my hon. Friend said, when framing a new set of proposals for a local authority and setting up its standing orders, or when setting up a new Assembly, we must try to take a view that goes beyond the difficulties of the first year or two.
I represent a county that went through the mincing machine of local government reorganisation about 10 years ago. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) in his place, and he will understand what I am about to say. The Government of the day argued that


there were bound to be teething problems but that local government reorganisation would go beyond the election of one council and its political colour.
If we apply the same argument in this case, we shall have to go beyond the difficulties of whatever the electorate may throw up after the first set of elections. We cannot simply say to the Assembly "Well, you go at your own pace." If the electorate is sufficiently inconsiderate as to throw up an Assembly that is not along the lines envisaged in the Bill, my right hon. Friend simply puts on the brakes and says "You do not go along that particular road or follow that line, but hold back until you want to move on."
In all honesty, one cannot pursue that policy. In a way I would have more support for the Bill if, in seeking to establish a Northern Ireland Assembly, it specified in clear detail what the powers would and would not be. I did not like the old Stormont. I was not particularly unhappy when Stormont was abolished in 1973. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said, at least there was accountability and Ministers at Stormont knew their powers, knew how far they could go and knew their responsibilities and everyone in the whole system knew where the buck stopped.
In the end, although sometimes there was no clarity about it, the buck inevitably stopped here at Westminster. I believe that in the end, however much we may try to pass it on in the short run, the buck will have to stop at Westminster, irrespective of what comes out of the implementation of subsection (2).

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While in no way agreeing with my hon. Friend on the prorogation and ultimate abolition of Stormont, to which I was strongly opposed at the beginning of the 1970s, and against which I voted, may I ask whether he agrees that the sheer flexibility of the subsection will set dangerous precedents not only for Northern Ireland, as he is describing, but perhaps in other parts of the United Kingdom as well? Will my hon. Friend direct his remarks to that end, because dangerous precedents are being set in the Bill?

Mr. Brown: I seldom disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), and I remember his opposition to the abolition of Stormont in 1973 and his great support for it. I disagree with him on this issue and will not be tempted into going down the road of arguing with him about the pros and cons of Stormont, though in this debate references to Stormont, and contrasting the arrangements that existed for Ministers in the Stormont Assembly their exact powers, and the clear lines of responsibility that they had, together with the clear separation of power between Westminster and Stormont, are relevant and useful.
My hon. Friend is right to draw my attention, and that of the Committee, to the fact that there must inevitably be implications for the rest of the kingdom if the subsection is passed in its present form. I do not see any way in which a determined, devolution-minded political party in Wales or Scotland would allow this measure to go on to the statute book without seeking to use it for its political purpose. There is no sense in not recognising that.

Viscount Cranborne: My hon. Friend has been talking, with considerable justice, about the flexible nature

of the proposals. He quoted the example of subsection (2), to which we are addressing ourselves. Will he consider whether the flexibility introduced by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Northern Ireland Office has come as a direct result of the attempt to do something which, by definition, the Stormont settlement did not do, which is to give the minority communities in Northern Ireland a say in the government of the Province?
Does my hon. Friend agree that so long as that attempt is being made in a Northern Ireland rather than a United Kingdom, and therefore a Westminster, context, the flexibility to which he has alluded is inevitably a part of those proposals, and that flexibility in a Northern Ireland context alone contains within it the seeds of the destruction of those proposals?

Mr. Brown: I accept what my hon. Friend has said. One understands and appreciates the honourable motive behind the idea of flexibility of my right hon. and hon. Friends who sit on the Treasury Bench. It is a reasonable attempt, but if one thinks that through the legislative processes one can try to solve the problem that we all recognise, one is wrong. I hope that the right hon. Member for Crosby agrees that the reason why Conservative Members are spending so much time and energy in debating the matter at great length is that we are deeply concerned.
It can be seen from the attendance during debates on Northern Ireland matters, and from the balance of the political parties whenever Northern Ireland matters are debated, whether on a late night order at 10.30, 11 o'clock, or later, that it is usually the Government Back Benches that ensure that there is some representation, whereas on the other Benches there is often none.
It is because we are so deeply concerned about the possibility of failure that we are anxious to ensure that whatever the House does there shall be no failure. We are worried about the fact that the Secretary of State has genuinely not made any great claims for the Bill. My criticism is that the Bill has great implications for the future of both Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom.
What worries me and so many of my hon. Friends and which causes us to scrutinise the Bill in every detail, is that we have seen so many attempts to grapple with the problem of Northern Ireland come to nothing. We see now an amalgam of various attempts to solve the problems. We should have the advantage this time of knowing what may well happen in Northern Ireland when such an Assembly is finally set up. The experience of the past 10 or 15 years of power sharing, attempts to create some credible Stormont, call it what one will—Assembly, power-sharing Executive—should enable us to join up the dots of the circle and realise that if we are not careful we will be back where we started.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the long history that has led to the assiduous efforts of himself and his hon. Friends to investigate the Bill in great detail. I might just add that as the Minister of State, Home Office at the time when the troops were first sent in, I am also conscious of the reasons why it is important to try to build better relations between the two communities. I was worried by what appeared to be an absence of the realisation of the importance of that in the course of the debate.

Mr. Brown: I accept entirely that the right hon. Lady, like every hon. Member who has participated in the debate, from whichever political party, wishes nothing but the best for the future of Northern Ireland. However, there was an implication in her intervention earlier when she referred to the "negativism"—I think that was the word she used—of Conservative Members. I dispute that.
Given that the House has given a Second Reading to the Bill, we have been concerned and determine to consider some sensible amendments and to deal with the problem to which the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) drew attention. We must sort out the chaff from the maize in the wording of this subsection. It is important to ensure that we get that balance right.
I submit that those of us who are scrutinising the Bill in detail in Committee are not doing so simply out of a desire that the Bill should not find a place on the statute book. I should rather it did not find a place on the statute book, but I recognise—

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Committee has a duty and a responsibility to consider in detail any legislation for Northern Ireland if it impinges on other parts of the United Kingdom, as some hon. Members believe that this will?
The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) raised the question of discussing Northern Ireland business. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the time that is spent in the House discussing Scottish business. Any Scottish Member will inform the right hon. Lady that we spend a lot of time upstairs as well discussing Scottish business. That seems to work effectively. We in Scotland wonder why Northern Ireland cannot have the same benefits.

Mr. Brown: Debating Scottish affairs in detail in the Mother of Parliaments—in Committee upstairs, or in a full-scale debate on the Floor of the House—ensures that the people of Scotland do not feel that we are letting them down and do not feel remote from Westminster. When the people of Scotland and Wales were invited to participate in a referendum on whether the devolution Bills were acceptable, they decided that Parliament at Westminster was the best body to consider and look after their affairs. They must have been pleased to know that not only were Scottish Members prepared to look after their constituency interests, but that English Members also were prepared to do so.
I took great exception when it was implied that hon. Members needed great in-depth knowledge of Northern Ireland before speaking on the subject and had to satisfy the Committee that they had made X number of visits to Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland should be pleased that so many hon. Members who do not have a great deal to do with Northern Ireland are concerned with far-flung parts of the United Kingdom and are prepared to consider their problems in such detail. It is a great credit to our parliamentary system—and one of its great strengths—that we can bring to bear our concern for that part of the United Kingdom. Ultimately, as has been said, the measure also has implications for the rest of the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Minister should consider the amendments, because if he and his colleagues insist that the Bill should reach the statute book as soon as possible, it is vital that we should ensure that, in our haste and

speed, we get things right for a part of the United Kingdom that has been through so many problems and failures. We must get things right this time, because there will not be any room for another constitutional failure. We must clarify the powers and responsibilities of heads of Department and of Members of the proposed Executive, and clarify why heads of Department can appoint deputy heads that are not members of the Assembly. We are trying to deal with a majority and a minority and with the possibility that that minority will not be represented because the majority will send a certain type of Member to the Assembly, who will not be acceptable to Ministers in this House, or perhaps to the House as a whole.
We are trying to ensure that the gap is bridged. However, in doing so, the Government will sow the seeds of destruction.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am following my hon. Friend's excellent argument closely. Is he saying that, through the mish-mash of the constitutional monstrosity before the Committee, he would rather go back to the Stormont situation that existed before abolition than see Northern Ireland integrated into the United Kingdom? Many hon. Members would see the latter as a positive contribution towards solving the problems of the troubled Province of Ulster.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted down that road. It is getting far from the amendment that we are discussing.

Mr. Brown: Obviously the implication of what I have been saying is that, if the Government were merely implementing the spirit of their election commitment in 1979 to integration, that would be a more acceptable way of progressing.
12 midnight
I accept, Mr. Dean, that we cannot pursue that argument with this group of amendments, although it is bound to run through our minds as we consider the detail of the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to consider seriously the amendments that are being proposed, and certainly the amendments that relate to the second part of subsection (2). That is important to hon. Members.

Mr. Scott: At the slight risk of gilding the lily, perhaps I could add my congratulations to you, Mr. Dean. We have been friends since long before either of us became Members of the House. For personal reasons it is a delight to hear of your appointment, and I look forward to sitting for many hours under your chairmanship.
I have listened to the arguments that have been presented, but I see no reason to change the advice that I gave to the Committee when I last intervened to reject the amendments. I should like to take up some of the points that have been raised. Some of them affect other parts of the Bill perhaps more immediately than this part. It would be appropriate for those points to be discussed and settled when we reach those other parts of the Bill.
The point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), and by his distinguished predecessor the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), about the uncertainties and problems associated with partial


devolution—for example, the split responsibilities and the fact that some Ministers would be responsible to the Assembly while the Secretary of State would have overall responsibility to the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West spoke graphically about the uncertainties. I accept the points that have been made.
In many ways partial devolution will have unsatisfactory aspects, but it must be seen as a step, or possibly more than one step, along the road to full devolution which is the aim of the Bill. The unsatisfactory nature of partial devolution stems from the problem that we are seeking to solve. I believe that we will give ourselves a substantially greater chance of being able to move to full devolution if we have before us the opportunity of moving in the first stage to partial devolution.
My hon. Friend spoke about the control of Parliament during partial devolution. It is a quibble, but it enables me to deal with another point raised by him when he advanced the examples of devolving district hospitals in the first instance and mental hospitals subsequently. The idea of partial devolution is that whole Departments should be devolved. All the responsibilities should be moved over to the devolved Administration at once.
Although, in my view, it would be unsatisfactory, if it became impossible for one particular aspect of a Department's work to be devolved and that was holding up agreement on a package for partial devolution, it would be possible to devolve part of those responsibilities. Under the Bill, that could be done only by removing those responsibilities from the Department before moving on to the devolution procedure.

Mr. Proctor: What happens to the responsibilities that might be removed from the Department that will be devolved? Will the Minister of the Crown continue to be responsible?

Mr. Scott: In practice, the duties would be exercised by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend has been very kind and courteous in fully replying to the debate and in giving way. We have had an excellent and useful debate to which he has contributed fully by his courtesy. I wish sharply to differentiate between his conduct and that of his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who truncated the previous debate, which was extremely disturbing to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
My hon. Friend says that a partial devolution of the work of one Department is undesirable. He says that the Government do not intend to attempt such a partial devolution dividing up the work of the Department. But the Bill as framed would allow a partial devolution of the work of any one Department. Would he accept an amendment so that the work of a Department could be devolved only in toto, or devolved back only in toto, but that there could not be the piecemeal devolution which he concedes would cause great problems?

Mr. Scott: The short answer is "No". As drafted, the Bill provides the flexibility that we need. My hon. Friend's suggestion would needlessly complicate matters. It is the Government's intention that such devolution should take place Department by Department.
The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) raised a number of interesting points. She opened her speech with a telling commentary on the inadequacy of the

House's scrutiny of Northern Ireland affairs. Much time and effort are rightly spent on security and constitutional matters. Having been responsible for a Northern Ireland Department for the past nine months, I know how rarely it is that the precise matters that come under my responsibility are raised on the Floor of the House. Although the people of Northern Ireland are of course interested in such matters, they are also interested in schools, homes and hospitals. It is our profound belief that the creation of an Assembly and devolved government is the right way to give them back power over those matters.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the question of responsibility and acceptability to the Assembly of members of the Executive. I am not sure whether I disappoint her—I found it slightly difficult to follow her argument at that point—but it is clear that the acceptability or otherwise would be seen as a package of the names that came forward. If she considers that carefully, she will see that if the Assembly comes forward with proposals that have been carefully worked out, it would be wrong either for the House, or perhaps for arrangements for the Assembly itself, to work through the names to decide which were acceptable. The package as a whole must be accepted and for the same reason we would not wish to move towards a system of what the Americans call "advise and consent", where individual names come forward for formal voting. That would not help to get the process of rolling devolution in operation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West made much of the powers of the Secretary of State, especially the powers of appointment where devolution is in some trouble and Members' confidence is withdrawn from Ministers responsible to the Assembly My right hon. Friend would have the power to appoint, as a caretaking measure, Northern Ireland junior Ministers responsible to the He use of Commons in order to shoulder the responsibilities, but that would be for only six months. It would be used simply to enable devolved arrangements to be continued if there was the prospect of reconstituting a Northern Ireland Administration after a breakdown without the need for a fresh election. A parallel to that was included in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) spoke about flexibility. It is worth pointing out the provisions of schedule 2:
Before making any appointment … the Secretary of State shall so far as practicable consult with the parties represented in the Assembly and take into account any proposals … under clause 1
of the Bill. The duty is there. The right hon. Member for Crosby wished to have that fleshed out. It is difficult to do so precisely because we do not know what sort of Assembly will be elected and the arrangements that the parties within the Assembly will wish to formalise. The attitude of my right hon. Friend and those who help him is that we should devote the maximum time and effort to those consultations, because unless we can achieve devolved government our whole effort—the production of the White Paper and the hours that we are spending in consideration of the Bill—will come to naught.
The Assembly in its early stages will have a useful job to perform, but it must be seen as a job that will lead towards devolution. We shall make every effort and use our imagination and skill—all the virtues that the right


hon. Member for Down, South imbued us with earlier—to consult and ensure that, from those consultations, we gain proposals for devolved government.

The parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jopling): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divide: Ayes 142, Noes 20.

Division No. 179]
[12.13 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.


Alison, RtHon Michael
Dover, Denshore


Alton, David
Dunn, Robert(Dartfort)


Arnold, Tom
Eggar, Tim


Baker, Kenneth(St. M'bone)
Elliott, SirWilliam


Baker, Nicholas(N Dorset)
Eyre, Reginald


Banks, Robert
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Beith, A. J.
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Benyon, Thomas(A'don)
Fletcher, A.(Ed'nb'gh N)


Benyon, W.(Buckingham)
Forman, Nigel


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gardner, Edward(S Fylde)


Best, Keith
Goodlad, Alastair


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gow, Ian


Blackburn, John
Grant, Anthony(Harrow C)


Blaker, Peter
Gray, Hamish


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)


Bottomley, Peter(W'wich W)
Hamilton, Hon A.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hampson, DrKeith


Bright, Graham
Hannam, John


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Haselhurst, Alan


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hawkins, Paul


Brotherton, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Browne, John(Winchester)
Hayhoe, Barney


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)


Buck, Antony
Holland, Philip(Carlton)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hooson, Tom


Butler, Hon Adam
Hordern, Peter


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Hunt, David(Wirral)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hunl, John(Ravensbourne)


Carlisle, John(Luton West)
Irvine, BryantGodman


Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Jessel, Toby


Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey


Colvin, Michael
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Costain, SirAlbert
Lang, Ian


Crouch, David
Lester, Jim(Beeston)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lyell, Nicholas





MacGregor, John
Scott, Nicholas


MacKay, John(Argyll)
Sever, John


Major, John
Shaw, Giles(Pudsey)


Marland, Paul
Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)


Marlow, Antony
Shersby, Michael


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Silvester, Fred


Mather, Carol
Smith, Tim,(Beaconsfield)


Mawby, Ray
Speller, Tony


Mawhinney, DrBrian
Stevens, Martin


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, A.(ERenfrewshire)


Mellor, David
Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)


Mills, Iain(Meriden)
Stradling Thomas. J.


Moate, Roger
Tapsell, Peter


Morrison, Hon P.(Chester)
Taylor, Teddy(S'end E)


Myles, David
Thompson, Donald


Neale, Gerrard
Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)


Needham, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Newton, Tony
Waddington, David


Normanton, Tom
Wakeham, John


Onslow, Cranley
Waldegrave, HonWilliam


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wall, SirPatrick


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Waller, Gary


Patten, John (Oxford)
Ward, John


Penhaligon, David
Wells, Bowen


Pollock, Alexander
Wheeler, John


Prior, RtHon James
Whitney, Raymond


Raison, RtHon Timothy
Wickenden, Keith


Rhodes James, Robert
Williams, D (Montgomery)


Rhys Williams, SirBrandon
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Ridley, HonNicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Ridsdale, SirJulian
Young, SirGeorge (Acton)


Rifkind, Malcolm



Roper, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Sainsbury, HonTimothy
Mr. John Selwyn Gummer.




NOES


Amery, RtHon Julian
McQuade, John


Biggs-Davison, SirJohn
Molyneaux, James


Brown, Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Murphy, Christopher


Budgen, Nick
Paisley, Rev Ian


Cranborne, Viscount
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Dunlop, John
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Goodhart, SirPhilip
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gorst, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Knight, MrsJill



Lawrence, Ivan
Tellers for the Noes:


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Mr. William Moss and


McCusker, H.
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divide: Ayes 20, Noes 142.

Division No. 180]
[12.25 am


AYES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
McQuade, John


Biggs-Davison, SirJohn
Molyneaux, James


Brown, Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Murphy, Christopher


Budgen, Nick
Paisley, Rev Ian


Cranborne, Viscount
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.(S Down)


Dunlop, John
Smyth, Rev. W. M.(Belfast S)


Goodhart, SirPhilip
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gorst, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Knight, MrsJill



Lawrence, Ivan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lloyd, Peter(Fareham)
Mr. William Ross and


McCusker, H.
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Hawkins, Paul


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Alton, David
Hayhoe, Barney


Arnold, Tom
Hogg, HonDouglas (Gr'th'm)


Aspinwall, Jack
Holland, Philip(Carlton)


Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)
Hooson, Tom


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Hordern, Peter


Banks, Robert
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Beith, A. J.
Irvine, BryantGodman


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Jessel, Toby


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey


Berry, HonAnthony
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Best, Keith
King, Rt Hon Tom


Bevan, David Gilroy
Lang, Ian


Blackburn, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Blaker, Peter
Lyell, Nicholas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
MacGregor, John


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Major, John


Bright, Graham
Marland, Paul


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Marlow, Antony


Brooke, Hon Peter
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Brotherton, Michael
Mather, Carol


Browne, John (Winchester)
Mawby, Ray


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Mawhinney, DrBrian


Buck, Antony
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bulmer, Esmond
Mellor, David


Butler, Hon Adam
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Moate, Roger


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Morrison, Hon P.(Chester)


Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Myles, David


Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Neale, Gerrard


Colvin, Michael
Needham, Richard


Cope, John
Nelson, Anthony


Costain, Sir Albert
Newton, Tony


Crouch, David
Normanton, Tom


Dorrell, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Dover, Denshore
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Eggar, Tim
Penhaligon, David


Elliott, SirWilliam
Pollock, Alexander


Eyre, Reginald
Prior, Rt Hon James


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Rhodes James, Robert


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fletcher, A.(Ed'nb'ghN)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Forman, Nigel
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Goodlad, Alastair
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Gow, Ian
Roper, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Gray, Hamish
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)
Scott, Nicholas


Hamilton, Hon A.
Shaw, Giles(Pudsey)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)


Hannam, John
Shersby, Michael


Haselhurst,Alan
Silvester, Fred





Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Ward, John


Speller, Tony
Wells, Bowen


Stevens, Martin
Wheeler, John


Stewart, A (E Renfrewshire)
Whitney, Raymond


Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)
Wickenden, Keith


Stradling Thomas, J.
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Tapsell, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Thompson, Donald
Wolfson, Mark


Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Viggers, Peter
Younger, Rt Hon George


Waddington, David



Waldegrave, Hon William
Tellers for the Noes:


Wall, Sir Patrick
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Waller, Gary
Mr. Selwyn Gummer.

Question accordingly negatived.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Earlier the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) put a request to me for separate Divisions on some of the amendments that were being considered with the amendment that he has just disposed of. I undertook to consult the Chairman of Ways and Means about that request. If desired, there can be separate Divisions on amendment No. 10, which would come straight away, and on amendment No. 68, which would come later on schedule 1.

Amendment proposed: No. 10 in page 2, line 3, leave out from "relate" to end of line 6—[Mr. J. Enoch Powell.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The Committee divided: Ayes 19, Noes 142.

Division 181]
[12.37 am


AYES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
McCusker, H.


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Molyneaux, James


Brotherton, Michael
Murphy, Christopher


Brown, Michael (Brigg&amp;Sc'n,)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Budgen, Nick
Smyth, Rev. W. M.(Belfast S)


Cranborne, Viscount
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dunlop, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Goodhart,Sir Philip



Gorst,John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Knight,Mrs Jill
Mr. William Ross and


Lawrence,Ivan
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle,Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alison,Rt Hon Michael
Clarke,Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Alton,David
Colvin,Michael


Arnold,Tom
Cope,John


Aspinwall,Jack
Costain,Sir Albert


Baker,Kenneth (St. M'bone)
Crouch,David


Baker,Nicholas (N Dorset)
Dorrell,Stephen


Banks,Robert
Douglas-Hamilton,Lord J.


Beaumont-Dark,Anthony
Dover,Denshore


Beith,A. J.
Dunn,Robert (Dartford)


Benyon,Thomas (A'don)
Eggar,Tim


Benyon,W. (Buckingham)
Elliott,Sir William


Berry,Hon Anthony
Eyre,Reginald


Best,Keith
Fairgrieve,Sir Russell


Bevan,David Gilroy
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Blackburn,John
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Blaker, Peter
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)


Boscawen,Hon Robert
Forman,Nigel


Bottomley,Peter (W'wich W)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Boyson,Dr Rhodes
Garel-Jones,Tristan


Bright,Graham
Goodlad,Alastair


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Gow, Ian


Brooke, Hon Peter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Browne,John (Winchester)
Gray, Hamish


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Griffiths, E. (B'ySt. Edm'ds)


Buck,Antony
Gummer, John Selwyn


Bulmer,Esmond
Hamilton, Hon A.


Butler, Hon Adam
Hampson,Dr Keith


Cadbury,Jocelyn
Hannam,John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Haselhurst,Alan






Hawkins,Paul
Rhodes James, Robert


Hawksley,Warren
Rhys Williams, SirBrandon


Hayhoe,Barney
Ridley,HonNicholas


Hogg, HonDouglas (Gr'th'm)
Ridsdale,SirJulian


Holland,Philip (Carlton)
Rifkind,Malcolm


Hooson,Tom
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Hordern,Peter
Roper,John


Hunt,John (Ravensbourne)
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Irvine,BryantGodman
Sainsbury,HonTimothy


Jessel,Toby
Scott,Nicholas


JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Jopling,RtHon Michael
Shaw,Michael (Scarborough)


King, RtHonTom
Shersby,Michael


Lester,Jim (Beeston)
Silvestr,Fred


Lyell, Nicholas
Smith,Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacGregor,John
Speller,Tony


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Stevens, Martin


Major,John
Stewart. A. (ERenfrewshire)


Marland,Paul
Stewart,Ian (Hitchin)


Marlow, Antony
Stradling, Thomas. J.


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Tapsell, Peter


Mather,Carol
Taylor, Teddy (S' end E)


Mawby, Ray
Thompson,Donald


Mawhinney, DrBrian
Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Viggers, Peter


Mellor, David
Waddington, David


Mills,Iain(Meriden)
Waldegrave,HonWilliam


Moate, Roger
Wall,SirPatrick


Morrison, Hon P.(Chester)
Waller, Gary


Myles, David
Ward,John


Neale, Gerrard
Wells,Bowen


Needham,Richard
Wheeler,John


Nelson,Anthony
Whitney, Raymond


Newton,Tony
Wickenden,Keith


Normanton,Tom
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Onslow, Cranley
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Page, John(Harrow, West)
Wolfson, Mark


Page, Richard(SW Herts)
Young, SirGeorge(Acton)


Patten,John(Oxford)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Penhaiigon, David



Pollock, Alexander
Tellers for the Noes:


Prior, Rt Hon James
Mr. David Hunt and


Raison, RtHonTimothy
Mr. Ian Lang.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Molyneaux: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 7, leave out subsection (3).
Subsection (3) provides for the Assembly to include proposals—it is worth looking at the exact terminology—
for further provisions in the standing orders".
We on the Official Unionist Bench, and I am certain Conservative Members, want to ask what are the standing orders referred to which will have further provisions attached. We should like to know whether they are the basic standing orders provided for in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and what the reason is for their extension. What is the reason for further provisions? One is tempted and led on to ask, what is the point in having the powers conferred in clause 1(3)?
Two explanations appear to be given in the notes with which we have been provided as a result of the cooperation of the Secretary of State and the initiative of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor).
The first explanation is that the provision "makes administrative good sense." It will have little in common with the rest of the Bill, which makes neither administrative nor legislative good sense. The second explanation is perhaps the real one. It
enables minority representatives to safeguard their position as part of an agreement on a devolution package.
It is perhaps another aspect of what the hon. Member for Basildon has described as wheeling and dealing. Hon.

Members may, however, prefer the more elegant phrase "cobbled together" favoured by the Secretary of State. Whatever the motive, I fear that it introduces yet another element of uncertainty into a Bill packed with uncertainty.
Without some valid explanation of this extraordinary provision, the idea of confronting this improbable Assembly with the task of scrutinising the existing standing orders and debating how these can be improved or added to makes one wonder whether the Government intend seriously that agreement should be reached between the various parties. The phrase
enables minority representatives to safeguard their position as part of an agreement on a devolution package
is almost an incentive and incitement to minority parties, even very small minority parties on either side of the fence, to do their best to gum up the works and to set a high price on their co-operation. I am afraid that one is led to that conclusion—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend. I have not applied, as I should have done, for my personal copy of the explanatory notes. Is there any indication in the notes of the way in which standing orders will enable a minority to safeguard its position? I have had only a moment or two to reflect on what my hon. Friend has quoted from the notes. It is difficult to understand how the standing orders
for the better conduct of any functions that would become exercisable
by the Assembly could be utilised by a minority to protect its position. Does anything throw light on that?

Mr. Molyneaux: I am not sure that I can do much to clear up the mystery. I can only inform my right hon. Friend that paragraph 9, dealing with clause 1, states:
For example, there could be a provision in the standing orders that votes of confidence in the Assembly required a specified majority.
It would be out of order to deal with another set of amendments that will be reached perhaps later this month in respect of 70 per cent. and cross-community consent. The two requirements—70 per cent. and cross community consent—are written into the Bill. One is therefore baffled by the additional requirement which seems to give the Assembly at least the right to devise yet another road block and obstacle over which the long-suffering majority of the representatives elected to the Assembly would have to hurdle before they could get down to anything constructive. I can only assume that the extracts I have read from the notes are a broad hint to any and all irresponsible minority groupings or parties to make the most of the opportunity provided for them by the subsection.

Mr. Gorst: What sort of opportunity does the hon. Gentleman envisage might develop from what he has suggested?

Mr. Molyneaux: I am thinking of still further tinkering with the two requirements that are featured in another part of the clause. For example, there is the requirement for a 70 per cent. weighted majority before decisions can be taken at a certain level about whether partial or complete devolution can take place. There is also the almost insurmountable problem of cross-community consent.
The only interpretation that I can place on the explanatory note is that this will be an encouragement. Here I am talking not about the minority as it is understood by the Government but about irresponsible groups of


independent members who will make the most of every opportunity to gum up the works of the Assembly. That is why it is highly dangerous to include such a provision in the Bill, and I trust that the Committee will support our amendment.

Mr. John Patten: Perhaps I can deal straight away with an important point raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) about the present standing and status of Assembly standing orders.
The standing orders are those made under section 25 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. The Bill does not change those provisions at all. The standing orders made before the Assembly was dissolved in 1974 remain in force and will apply on the election of a new Assembly until that Assembly changes them under the provisions in the Bill.
I should like to make two brief comments to outline at this stage the Government's position. I personally hope that the Committee will accept that it is very sensible for the Assembly to be able to propose amendments to its standing orders for the better conduct of its affairs in the event of a full or partial devolution of powers.
Should it at any stage assume a legislative role, it surely would be wrong to debar the Assembly from adopting procedures different from those that existed when it was a purely consultative body required to have departmentally related committees under clause 4.
It is simply common sense that when forming any devolution proposals, which will be subject to the consent of the Assembly and the House, the Assembly should be free to make arrangements for the conduct of its business as it considers necessary. The proposal as outlined in this clause stands or falls most importantly of all on that simple and pragmatic ground.

Mr. Gorst: In what circumstances and for what sort of reasons might the Secretary of State reject these proposals? I understand that they will be presented to the Secretary of State. If my hon. Friend cannot envisage any such reasons, why must the proposals be submitted to the Secretary of State?
1 am

Mr. Patten: It is extremely difficult for me to predict exactly any circumstances in which proposals for the amendment of standing orders under the Bill, or different elements of a devolution proposal, could come before the House of Commons. However, this is the provision that enables the Secretary of State to scrutinise, before laying before the House, proposals from the Assembly to ensure that they are in the Government's judgment the sort of proposals that should be laid before the House—these issues will be debated on later amendments—and therefore that any proposals laid before the House are thought to be practicable. I cannot predict whether any proposals from the Assembly over the standing orders would not be practicable.

Mr. Gorst: My hon. Friend's answer to me suggests a lack of confidence. After all, we are talking only about standing orders, not about legislative actions or Executive functions.

Mr. Patten: Such standing orders are likely to be part and parcel of any devolution package—I am sorry that I cannot find a more felicitous word to use—from the Assembly, which contained proposals for the devolution

to Assembly of transferred powers that had gained consent across the community. Certain checks and balances introduced in a new set of amended standing orders may be a vital part of that devolution package.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Perhaps I should know the answer to this question, but can my hon. Friend tell me whether the star ding orders of the Northern Ireland Assembly were submitted to the Secretary of State. and did all of them receive his approval? We are anxious not to constrain the freedom of action of the new Assembly, and this subsection provides for new standing orders. Will there then be the difference that any additions will require the approval of the. Secretary of State, whereas the original standing orders did not—or did they?

Mr. Patten: No, the preceding Assembly standing orders are not subject to the approval of the Secretary of State of the day.
I shall answer the latter part of my hon. Friend's question by enlarging on what cannot have escaped the notice of right hon. and hon. Members. Subsection (3) fulfils an important purpose, not just the practical purpose of making the conduct of the Assembly as easy and as sensible as possible for the 78 or 85 Members of the Assembly. It provides a substantial measure of flexibility for the compilation of proposals about devolution which might be passed on to the House and which would command the maximum support across the community. The Government believe that it is an essential provision for paving the way to a cross-community agreement on a means of devolution.
To take up the point of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), representatives of the various parties could, as the notes on clauses—I am glad that the hon. Member found them helpful—pointed out, safeguard their position in return for agreement on a specific devolution proposal by requiring certain amendments, for example, to the standing orders of the Assembly, or to arrangements for votes of confidence.
I do not wish to go further down that road, or speculate on what might or might not happen, because the very purpose of the Bill is to give a framework within which the people of Northern Ireland, who have elected the representatives to the Assembly, can have accommodations made to provide for the better government of Northern Ireland by the Assembly. But these are matters for the Assembly to decide, riot matters to be determined in this Chamber. The Government's firm intention ms merely to provide a framework within which agreements can take place.

Mr. Molyneaux: With respect, the framework was adequately set out in section 25 of the 1973 Act. Subsection (4) makes adequate provision for the establishment of consultative committees. For example, there is provision in subsection (7) for any consultative committee which wishes to do so to obtain information from a Government Department.
Far from providing a framework that can be clearly understood, the Government appear in clause after clause of the Bill to make it so elastic that nobody quite knows its shape. The impression that will be given to the unfortunate members elected to the Assembly is that it can be squeezed and pushed in any direction.

Mr. Patten: I regret that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of that section. It is not the Government's view that an adequate range of powers to alter standing orders is conferred on the face of that Act.
The hon. Gentleman's second, and for me most significant, question was: to what purpose or purposes could such accommodations be put? My answer is not related to the ways, means and mechanisms by which such accommodations might be made; that is for the Members of the Assembly to decide within the Assembly. However, if the Assembly asks the House to devolve some transferred powers which have become hallowed in one or more Departments, the House must then decide clearly whether the proposals have cross-community support. The fact that the proposals are designed, perhaps with some suggestions for changes in the standing orders of the Assembly, to protect the interests of particular groups, or to show that some accommodation has been reached among the different parties and interest groups, would surely help to reassure the House that the purpose of the Bill, of permitting devolution with cross-community support, had been achieved.
I can do no better in conclusion—

Rev. Ian Paisley: As a member of the Assembly, I had standing orders committed to me by the Secretary of State on the first day that the Assembly met. Are those the standing orders to which the Minister is referring? After the Assembly met I was a member of the committee that drew up standing orders for the Assembly—

Mr. Gorst: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. There is a terrible squeal on the loudspeaker. Can the hon. Gentleman lower the pitch of his voice or the loudspeaker be adjusted? It is difficult to take in what is squealing through the public address system.

Mr. Lawrence: Further to that point of order, Mr. Armstrong. This is not the first time that the audibility of the public address system in the House has been mentioned this evening. One had hoped that it was put right earlier. If the electricians have gone home, perhaps we should all go home.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I shall look into that immediately.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like the Minister to tell us what standing orders he is talking about.

Mr. Patten: I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that it was indeed the standing orders as handed down to the Assembly by the then Secretary of State, but they were the standing orders as handed down and subsequently amended by the Rules Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman was a Member. That is the point at which the new Assembly, should it be elected, would begin.
I can do no better than quote from paragraph 18 of the recent White Paper to sum up the Government's view:
The object of the Government's proposals is to point a way whereby, in spite of their acknowledged and continuing differences, the two sides of the community may achieve sufficient mutual respect, and make sufficient mutual accommodations, to participate more creatively in the public life of the Province".
I am afraid that the amendment would substantially reduce the chance of that respect and those accommodations being achieved. In addition, it might make the new Assembly's work much more difficult, because the Assembly could

not, in law, alter its own standing orders. Therefore, I must advise the Committee that in the interests of the Assembly's smooth running and of achieving those accommodations across the community and political divides, the amendment should be rejected.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Did the Minister say that by law the Assembly cannot amend its standing orders? I appreciate, of course, that it cannot amend the standing orders that are mandatory upon it under the 1973 Act, but where such orders are not mandatory, surely it can both make and amend standing orders. Perhaps some information will percolate through to the Minister.

Mr. Patten: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman intervened just before I sat down. He has given me the opportunity to say that the Assembly can alter the standing orders in all areas unless there is a mandatory element.

Mr. Gorst: Presumably, only with the Secretary of State's permission

Mr. Patten: No.

Viscount Cranborne: When considering the Bill and the draftsmen's motives I find myself tempted—and clause 1(3) is no exception—down two possible paths. One of those paths might appear to provide an uncharitable explanation of the draftsmen's motives, but the other might offer a more charitable explanation. However, both explanations seem to lead to the same disastrous conclusion.
The uncharitable interpretation of their motives to which I am attracted is that the Bill is prompted almost entirely by a colonial mentality. Clause 1, and subsections (2) and (3) in particular, is a good example of that mentality. Because of the draconian policy being pursued by the Government Whips, many hon. Members could not participate in our earlier debates. They wished to make points which may have seemed otiose and irrelevant in the Government's eyes, but which are important enough to those with doubts about the Bill to induce them to stay up to an advanced hour in the morning. Therefore, it is a pleasure, having sat here on and off—and rather more on than off—since early evening to have the privilege of catching the Chair's eye.
The strictures that come to mind when considering subsection (2) apply to some extent to subsection (3). For that reason I have been persuaded to support amendment No. 13. The uncharitable explanation is that the motives of the framers of the Bill are prompted by a colonialist mentality. Subsection (3) is a good example. As I understand it, the standing orders which will be added to standing orders under existing legislation—the Minister has given a lucid explanation of how that will work—will be subject to subsection (5), which reads:
The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament any proposals submitted to him under this section.
1.15 am
I repeat the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst): am I right in supposing that subsection (5) means that any standing orders added to the existing standing orders of the Assembly must be submitted to the House before they come into operation? If subsection (5) applies to the standing orders added under subsection (3), I am driven to the conclusion that the colonialist interpretation of the motives of the framers of the Bill carries a certain weight. I know, Mr. Armstrong, that you will call me to order if


I go too far down this road, but, if one looks at subsection 5(3), one sees that whatever the Assembly can do is always subject to the endorsement of the Secretary of State or of this House.
As somebody who has severe doubts about the proposals in the Bill, I have no objection to the House having the final say about what happens in Northern Ireland. That seems to be a thoroughly desirable principle for any part of the United Kingdom. However, it is a trifle perculiar that if we are to devolve government to the Province, we do not seem to be entirely clear just how that government will be devolved and which responsibilities will be those of the Assembly and which will be those of either the Secretary of State or the Westminster Parliament. I return to my colonialist interpretation. It reminds me of the tentative experiments of the 1950s and 1960s by the Colonial Office in giving a measure of self-government to British territories overseas. In many cases it gave limited powers, subject to the veto of the governor or the Secretary of State for the Colonies. That seems a close parallel to what is proposed in the Bill.

Mr. Gorst: I do not want to anticipate what my hon. Friend will say, but has he thought through the implications of what he is saying about colonialism? If he follows it a stage further, the modern attitude towards colonialism by our bureaucracies is that first one makes them quasi-independent, then they are told to be independent and then to merge with somebody who is near to them—the Argentine, for example, of Southern Ireland. Is my hon. Friend developing that line in his argument?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have difficulty in relating any reply to the amendment.

Viscount Cranborne: As always, Mr. Armstrong, your ruling does not surprise me. My hon. Friend's conclusions will have been listened to with keen attention by the Treasury Bench.
It is characteristic of the Bill that the Government are prepared to devolve certain powers to the Six Counties, but always with the proviso that if things go wrong nanny at Westminster knows best. I happen to believe that the Westminster Parliament does know best. We should preserve this system as the supreme and sovereign authority in the United Kingdom. But I am worried that, because of our anxiety that things should not go wrong, on the one hand we trust the inhabitants of the Six Counties far enough to make up some of their own rules, but on the other we do not trust them far enough to let them go all the way.
Clause 1(3) illustrates as well as subsection (2) what I mean. Here we have powers to set out further provisions in the standing orders to the new Assembly. Subsection (5) gives the Secretary of State and Parliament the nanny powers which make the proposals that would be acceptable only those which would be acceptable to the Secretary of State and a majority in the House. Under clause 2(4), the most important powers of any Government—over finance and personnel—are specifically excepted from the powers that be can be devolved to the Assembly. No matter what happens, we shall allow the Assembly only sufficient independence to kid the people of Northern Ireland into believing that they will have control over their own affairs.
Whether they want control in that sense is another matter. Sadly, I have little practical experience of the Six

Counties and would not presume to tell right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies what their constituents will think. But it is a remarkable betrayal of our mentality that we are prepared to devolve only certain powers, while telling the people of Ulster that they are being given the chance to have virtually a complete say over what they can and cannot do. That is the uncharitable interpretation of the motives prompting the framers of the Bill.
Against that, another interpretation perhaps runs counter to the one that I have attempted to propound It does so in some senses, but in others we could say that it is complementary to my first interpretation. I call it my charitable interpretation, simply because one of the most attractive characteristics of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is the enormous fund of good will that flows from every pore of his being. Many hon. Members could envy that fund of good will, with justice. It has prompted my right hon. Friend's attitude to his most onerous job as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that he has approached the proposals in the White Paper and the Bill—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the amendment, which deals with the elimination of subsection (3).

Viscount Cranborne: As always, Mr. Armstrong, I am very grateful for your guidance on such matters.
The proposals contained in subsection (3) could be interpreted as being prompted by a colonialist mentality. I have endeavoured to explain why I believe that to be so. I am now endeavouring to explain why I believe that the same motives could be given a more charitable interpretation. The proposals in subsection (3) could be interpreted as being prompted by the sort of good will that has prompted my right hon. Friend's approach to this legislation. I have the greatest respect for good will, but I doubt whether in all circumstances it is enough to ensure a successful conclusion to any endeavours. If I understand correctly what my hon. Friend the Minister said earlier, it seems to me that he is relying almost entirely on the good will of both communities in the new Assembly to he able to agree on the new standing orders, which may be laid before us in due course.
I always rise with considerable diffidence to talk about Northern Ireland in this Committee, because I am aware of my lack of practical experience of the Province. However, one characteristic of the past 10 years in Northern Ireland is that no matter how much good will has abounded in the breasts of Secretaries of State of either political persuasion, when it has come to the point, that good will has not been matched by both factions. I am sure that—especially in the case of the United Ulster Unionist Party—there are sufficient practical reasons for that.
1.30 am
A pious expression of hope that the new standing orders will be agreed and therefore forthcoming for us to consider will not be enough to ensure that the standing orders are produced. If we look back at the history of every attempt to produce a settlement in Ulster over the last 10 or 12 years, that history should have taught us at least to be a little less than sanguine about the prospects for success. Therefore, when I question the judgment of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten), which I do with the greatest reluctance, as he will know, and which


I always hesitate to do even in private, I am driven to do so because I read day in day out in the newspapers the evidence that is put before us about what is happening in Northern Ireland.
One of the most attractive characteristics of our parliamentary representative system of government is the inherent propensity of those who work in the Palace of Westminster to assume that everybody in the world outside is prompted by the same motives of good will as we all are here. I sometimes think that those who support so avidly and so genuinely the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament suffer from the same delusion. They think that the Russians, simply because they are human beings like us, will be prompted by the same motives as those of us who are fortunate enough to live in a Western liberal democracy.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a long way from the amendment. What he is saying bears no relation to it. He must not treat the Committee in this way.

Viscount Cranborne: I apologise to you, Mr. Armstrong, and to the Committee. I accept that I had strayed rather a long way in my enthusiasm to search for a parallel which I hoped would illuminate my argument. I apologise if I have failed not only to keep within the bounds of order, but to illuminate the argument as I hoped to do.
If I had to choose between the two interpretations of the motives that impelled the drafters of the Bill into action,
I would rather take the second than the first, not only from a natural desire to think as well as I can of my fellow Members, but because, if we look back on the history of proposals of this kind, affecting not only Northern Ireland, we must come to the conclusion that the roads to the particular hells enjoyed or otherwise by Governments of this country have almost invariably been paved with good intentions, rather than the reverse. Therefore, the colonialist attitude which seems to shine through to the sceptic as he peruses the pages of the Bill is the consequence of the good will from which I am afraid my right hon. and hon. Friends have suffered when they have considered the matter.
Subsection (3) would be all very well if we had any reason to suppose that the flexibility built into it by my right hon. and hon. Friends would lead to anything concrete. I regret to have to inform them that I have the gravest doubts about whether their hopes will be fulfilled. Instead of trying to bridge a curious gap between executive and legislative devolution—a gap which we did not properly explore because we were not given time to do so earlier—it would be much better to reconsider the Bill with a more rigorous approach, perhaps not so tainted with the good will which superficially is attractive but which in practical terms often leads to dangerous results

Sir Philip Goodhart: The last group of amendments dealt with the appointment of Northern Ireland heads of Departments and the possible appointment under the appropriate section of a person to assist any person appointed as head of any such Department. The debate was very interesting, and I wish that it could have gone on longer, but I must admit that during it I went out and had a bacon sandwich, a cup of coffee, and some other

refreshments that I shall not go into, because I felt that, interesting as the discussion was, there was not the least likelihood in the lifetime of this Government of any heads Departments in Northern Ireland being appointed from the Assembly. It was an interesting discussion, but it was entirely theoretical.
However, if the Government really intend to press ahead with this legislation, it is likely that we shall have an Assembly which we are told will, from its inception, have scrutinising, deliberative, and consultative functions. Clause 3 provides that, at a time when there is no suspension of direct rule, the Assembly
may, without prejudice to its powers by virtue of any Order under paragraph (b) of that subsection, consider any matter affecting Northern Ireland which is not an excepted or reserved matter".
That gives quite a lot of latitude.
I find impossible to understand in the old standing orders, unamended, that will come into force, how on earth the Assembly will go about its business and choose a subject for debate. Standing order No. 14, "Business of the Assembly", reads:
An Order Paper shall be prepared by the Clerk for each sitting day, showing the business to be placed before the Assembly, together with such other information as the Presiding Officer may from time to time direct.
The business of the Assembly shall be transacted in the following order:
(1) Private Business".
That is fairly easy to understand. There is no particular problem there.
(2) Messages from Her Majesty the Queen".
No particular problem there.
(3) Messages from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland".
Perhaps there will be some problems there, but not procedural problems.
(4) Announcement by the Presiding Officer".
I do not think that there will be many problems there.
(5) Questions".
There will be quite a lot of problems there, at the beginning anyhow, because there will be no one to answer questions.
(7) Statements by Members of the Executive".
Those will not play an important part in the Assembly's work at the beginning.
(8) Introduction of Measures".
Those will presumably be sent down by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but that was not envisaged when these rules of order were adopted.
(9) Motions relating to the setting up of Committees".
There is little problem there.
(10) Motions relating to Public Business".
There are problems there. Who on earth will decide which public business will be discussed on a Tuesday or a Thursday? In the House of Commons we have a Leader of the House who is a member of the Government. No doubt he will tell us that on the following Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday we shall be making further progress on the Northern Ireland Bill. Hon. Members will be able to approve or object to the Government's selection of business for the following week. But there will be a definite procedure.
In an ordinary council it is easy to decide on what the business will be. Councils have to administer the services in their areas and so the pressure of events decides the agenda for the council. But if my interpretation of the Government's reply to the discussion on the first group of


amendments is correct, the Assembly will not have the right to look into local government matters. It will therefore be floating in mid-air.

Viscount Cranborne: Has my hon. Friend also considered paragraph 9 of the notes, which have been kindly provided by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? Paragraph 9 deals with subsection (3). It describes the procedure for standing orders and states:
This makes administrative good sense, and enables minority representatives to safeguard their position".
My hon. Friend is right in everything he has said, but, if one of the main functions of discussing standing orders is to enable minorities to safeguard their position, is it likely that they will expend their energies on practical considerations rather than safeguarding their position against the minority? These two objectives seem to be wholly incompatible.

Sir Philip Goodhart: My hon. Friend is right, but I am concerned with how the Assembly will decide what the business on the second Tuesday and the second Thursday will be. Will the business be decided by the majority group in caucus? Will it be decided by the presiding officer? If it is to be decided by the presiding officer, who will he consult? Will minority groups be able to regard certain days as their own? If the Assembly existed now, how would it decide its business next week? Some Members might wish to discuss the affairs of the De Lorean car company while others might wish to discuss the administration of boys' homes in Belfast.

Mr. Gorst: Where is it laid down how often the Assembly will meet? I hope that my hon. Friend can assist me because I have missed that reference.

Sir Philip Goodhart: There is reference to that in standing order No. 16. I am sure that there are many other references to it, but that is the one that I have to hand.

Mr. Gorst: Is my hon. Friend certain that the Assembly would have to meet every day and every week?

Sir Philip Goodhart: No, not at all. Presumably changes could be made. The Assembly will be without leaders and presumably all men will be equal except in their party groups. How will it decide what to do? It will be unique among all elected assemblies in the United Kingdom in not having people in official positions within it. When all are equal, how will it decide what to do?

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Subsection (3) is one of the provisions in the Bill which with its very innocence courts inquisitiveness. As one reads the Bill one is struck by the apparent superfluity of the provision. That is a ground for warning. Draftsmen, though wrongly accused sometimes of pleonasm and excess of verbiage, do not normally waste a subsection for an unnecessary purpose. We have been told by the Minister that the Assembly will have power to make and to alter its standing orders except in so far as those are statutorily defined or requisite.
It seems, therefore, a superfluity for the Assembly, in making proposals to the Secretary of State under clause 1, to be told that it can, if it likes, mention ideas which it might have in its head about what in any case it can do—make or amend standing orders. It is not, therefore, altogether surprising that the debate has led to some

disclosures of what did not lie on the surface of the subsection. I have a notion that there are disclosures still to come.
It was a kindly, but perhaps not an entirely judicious, decision of the Secretary of State to place the notes on clauses at the disposal of right hon. and hon. Members. It gave my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) some start or grip on the question that he addressed to the Governrnent—"Why subsection (3)?". Yet it left, apparently, more questions unanswered than it resolved. It said that it makes "administrative good sense". Of course. I am sure that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) has been making that point. It is a good idea for an Assembly to have some standing orders, but one would not have thought that that in itself was sufficient explanation or justification of the subsection. It goes on to a different and much more serious matter. It says that it
enables minority representatives to safeguard their position as part of an agreement on a devolution package.
That is remarkable because the subsection says that the purpose of the proposals on standing orders is to make provision for the better conduct of any functions that would become exercisable by the Assembly. It is difficult to bridge the gap between the purpose of standing orders to improve the efficiency and the better conduct of the functions of the Assembly and safeguarding the position of minority representatives as part of an agreement on a devolution package.

Mrs. Knight: There is another gap to which I should like my right hon. Friend to direct his attention. It connects directly with what he has just said. Has he noticed that the notes that have so kindly been provided for us, in dealing with the devolution proposals, specifically state:
Power sharing is neither required, nor ruled out.
Does my right hon. Friend consider that to be another rather odd gap?

Mr. Powell: It may be that, though not ruled out, it comes in in various ways. Perhaps subsection (3) is one of the little holes through which it finds entry. That is the direction in which my argument was moving. Unwisely, those who compiled the notes proceeded to give an example. I know that the Under-Secretary of State, relatively new in office though he is, will be aware of one of the rules for Ministers, especially junior ones, at the Dispatch Box. It is "Do not use the examples that are supplied by the brief" because the examples nearly always—An important communication is being made. It is obviously a communication that commands the assent of the Minister as, I hope, is the communication that I am making.
It is only by way of a reminder that I recall to the Minister how injudiciously sometimes civil servants, who prepare these excellent documents, choose their examples. This is a case in point. It will be rather a blow to me if I am to lose the presence of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) at this point, as it had occurred to me that the implications of the example given would be of special interest to him. One never knows, however. As time goes on, the hon. Gentleman may be with us again before the point is finally disposed of. The notes on clauses state:
For example,"—
the fatal words—
there could be a provision in the Standing Orders that votes of confidence in the Assembly required a specified majority.
Exactly how would a standing order requiring a specified majority for votes of confidence protect minority representatives and allow them
to safeguard their position as part of an agreement on a devolution package"?
I will tell the Committee what occurs to me. It occurs to me that, for example, a vote of confidence might be requisite either to initiate or to sustain the appointment of a head of Department in the course of the devolution of a particular matter or subject. It further occurs to me that the specified majority for a vote of confidence might be the not unfamiliar figure of 70 per cent. That would be very remarkable indeed, as we have been assured already, and no doubt we shall be assured again in debates on the later part of clause 1, that the 70 per cent. relates only to the launching of devolution and that once it is in progress the ordinary conventions and the normal assumptions of majority and minority decision will apply. But that is not so.
We have learnt something of great importance. When the package is being cobbled together, or whatever verbiage is used for preference, we shall find that the 70 per cent. or something like it will be built into all kinds of obscure portions of the package and will be the means whereby it is commended to those who enter into it—perhaps to the Secretary of State and perhaps ultimately to the House.
If that is the purpose, it is no wonder that the trouble has been taken to say on the face of the Bill that
proposals for further provisions in the standing orders
may be included in the proposals asking for total or rolling devolution. Subsection (3) thus conceals another form of the power sharing mechanism which is more explicit in the following subsection and which is to permeate the whole procedure of devolution as conceived in the legislation. It was worth our time to elicit the fact that power sharing provisions are to be built not only into what appears on the face of the Bill but into the procedures of the Assembly as a condition of the Assembly's being allowed to administer or to be responsible for anything.
2 am
I am glad that the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) has persevered in well doing. In that respect, she provides a contrast with those who, turn and turn about, do sentry duty on the Opposition Front Bench. They remind me of proceedings on an earlier piece of legislation on which the Chamber was frequently addressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and others of us when we were engaged in destroying the Parliament (No. 2) Bill of the Session of 1967–68. The then Official Opposition had been so ill advised as to commit themselves to what was proposed in the Government's Bill. They were thereby reduced to the condition to which the Committee has seen the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and his occasional companions reduced—that of silence on their own part and a zealous anxiety that those behind them would be conspicuous by their absence rather than by their presence.
That part of the operation has been more successfully carried out in this case than it was by the Conservative Opposition in 1978, but, I am afraid, for a discreditable reason. If a party has a declared policy in regard to Northern Ireland and states as a matter of principle that it

intends to take no steps to advocate that policy in Northern Ireland, to explain it to the people of the Province or to secure, if it can, their agreement, what is left for that party in the House but silence and the state of boredom which the silent sentinel kept in his place by force of duty must so often suffer?
I was referring to the right hon., Member for Crosby, who observed in an earlier debate that the genius of the United Kingdom Parliament itself had been unable to find an adequate constitutional remedy for the demands and problems of Northern Ireland. She is right. But it is the exception that proves the rule. The reason why it has not been able to do so is that it has resolutely refused to apply the principles of its own parliamentary proceedings and its own parliamentary democracy to a part of the United Kingdom. This may be through some perception that its parliamentary rules principles and laws were those of a sovereign Parliament and of a unitary parliamentary State, and that fatal consequences would follow if the attempt were made to apply the same principles only to a portion—a special portion—of that unitary state.
But be that as it may. The fact is that, whenever a thing makes sense, whenever a thing is assumed automatically in the House, it is something that cannot be built into a constitution for Northern Ireland, we have to resort to all sorts of devices to ensure that any Assembly which we set up, any devolved Government or legislature which comes into existence cannot operate upon the same principles, upon those principles which have been evolved and proved by experience over the centuries in the House.
I think it was more instinct of the right hon. Lady than the conclusion of a long chain of ratiocination, but instinct is the contribution—if I may say so, with great respect—which that small, though very distinguished, minority of right hon. and hon. Members of her sex brings to the Government and Parliament of this country. It was instinct surely which enabled the right hon. Lady to place her finger absolutely straight on to the central point. She said that the people of Northern Ireland—I took down her words—ought to share what the rest of the people of the United Kingdom enjoy. It is the deduction that Parliament should ensure that all in the United Kingdom share in the same rights, the same form of control, the same power to call to account and the same influence over law and administration.
The right hon. Lady was right. Inspired for an instant perhaps by the genius of the United Kingdom Parliament that she had invoked, she spoke what are really the words of salvation for Northern Ireland and the only way in which this House will ever make sense of its responsibilities towards that part of the kingdom—that it will treat that part of the United Kingdom as it treats any other part of the United Kingdom and apply to it the same constitutional and electoral provisions.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The right hon. Gentleman is almost too kind towards the amazing instinct that I share with my sex. In the passage of my speech to which he has graciously referred, I was speaking specifically about the capacity of most parts of the United Kingdom to bridge through political opinion the different religious communities. It was that to which I was referring rather than the application of the methods and style of the House of Commons.

Mr. Powell: Quite so. If this House is to persist in isolating a part of the United Kingdom in which those


differences, rather than the differences that rend other parts of the United Kingdom, exist and are of a lasting character, it will find that it is driven into constructing unconstitutional, undemocratic and unparliamentary devices in order to be able to introduce such institutions at all. The right hon. Lady is still reasoning upon the right lines. I have every hope, by persistence and a combination of instinct and ratiocination, that she will arrive a Bench or two further back among those who claim for Northern Ireland what she says Northern Ireland ought to share—that is to say, the same institutions—with the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gorst: Is not the logic of what the right hon. Gentleman says that, if the same argument was applied to the sexes in Parliament, there would no doubt have to be power sharing in this Parliament of the sexes and also of races, creeds and colours? This has become a problem in Northern Ireland. If it became a problem in England, we would have to take similar action in order to remain consistent.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman cannot relate that to the amendment.

Mr. Powell: I am grateful, Mr. Armstrong, for your intervention. I considered that a fairly prickly question to deal with. I am glad to know that I shall not be allowed to respond. I am not quite sure how I would have extracted myself from the embarrassment into which the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) sought to entrap me. All the rest, until the intervention, as you, Mr. Armstrong, have observed, is strictly relevant to what we are now learning lies behind this apparently innocuous subsection.
It is to be another form of device, an essential paving of the way, according to the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten), to a cross-community arrangement. In order to produce this cross-community arrangement and to fulfil this preconceived condition, hon. Members find themselves, with almost every line of the Bill, doing things that would not bear examination in the light of our own practices and principles in this House.
What lies behind the term "cross-community"? Not co-operation or co-existence between Roman Catholics and those who are not; not co-operation and co-existence between male and female, if that will satisfy the hon. Member for Hendon, North; but co-operation and co-existence in government and legislation between those who are elected and sent to the Assembly to use their position to destroy the union of Northern Ireland with Great Britain and those who are sent there to preserve it. It is in order to bridge that contradiction, and to bring that contradiction within the scope of legislation and administration, that all these devices of a complexity and an absurdity that we increasingly explore are being resorted to.
It is, ex hypothesis, a vain and foolish attempt. We cannot produce co-operation between those who desire and those who reject the central political aim by arranging that the one shall have a veto upon the other. The end of that is confusion and frustration. The end of that scarcely needs to be described, as we have been able to observe it in action in 1973 and 1974 in Northern Ireland itself, when Northern Ireland was enjoying the blessings of the type of constitution which is now being revived by this legislation.
So it has turned out after all that it is indeed an important amendment that we are discussing. It is an amendment that the Committee ought to accept as an indication that it is not prepared to cobble together a constitution upon. the basis that it must hold within itself those who do not believe that there should be a constitution at all within the United Kingdom and those who wish the position within the United Kingdom to be assured as far as humanly possible.
It is an impossible object, and the pursuit of it leads to absurd and undesirable consequences—to a curse and not to a blessing, which I am prepared to believe, at any rate when he inherited it upon entrance into office, it was the desire of the right hon. Gentleman to confer. Let us remove subsection (3).

Mr. John Patten: I do not think that it would be wise to remove subsection (3). I welcome the opportunity again to explain to my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) and Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), and perhaps also to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), the exact position on standing orders and their application.
Standing orders come to the House of Commons and to the Secretary of State in this House only if they come as part of a set of devolution proposals that are to be laid before Parliament, otherwise the Assembly's standing orders are for the Assembly itself to determine for the better conduct of its business, subject only to the requirements of the law—in other words, clause 4 which we have yet to consider.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir. P. Goodhart), from his close reading of the standing orders of the Assembly, raised a number of interesting points. Of course the Assembly can change its standing orders. As I pointed out earlier to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), the pre-existing standing orders as amended by the last Assembly simply represent the starting point from which the new Assembly, should it be set up, can begin its new work.
2.15 am
The Assembly will have important tasks—for example, setting up departmentally related committees in its consultative phase. At that stage clearly, until there is devolution, the provisions in the existing standing orders, which are applicable only after devolution, cannot have any effect and cannot be brought back to life, but would undoubtedly need to be amended at a later stage.

Mr. Michael Brown: I have read subsections (3) and (4) carefully, and have the impression that, although the Secretary of State shall merely "lay before Parliament" any proposals submitted to him under previous sections relating to the clause, if previous proposals—and I suppose that those under subsection (3) are included—fail to get at least 70 per cent. support of the Members of the Assembly, it will be the Secretary of State who has to decide, whether the proposals relate to standing orders or otherwise, whether he is satisfied that the substance of the proposals, standing order or other proposals,
is likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community.
That would be on the assumption that the proposals regarding standing orders that are brought before the House of Commons under subsection (3) do not obtain the 70 per cent. The Secretary of State's role in this matter is


much greater than the Minister has led the Committee to believe. Will he reconsider some of the sentiments that he has expressed?

Mr. Patten: That is not the point, and I shall explain briefly why that is not right. Proposals coming to the House via the Secretary of State that involve standing orders only come to the House when those standing orders are part of a suggestion from the Assembly about how devolution might take place, and an integral part of that suggestion or those sets of suggestions when they come to the Secretary of State. That is the precise position.
I can tell the right hon. Member for Down, South that the Government could not have been any more open than they have been in leading up to the White Paper, its publication, the Bill, and the making freely available to hon. Members notes on clauses. I am glad that we had in front of us during an earlier discussion the worked example, as provided for in the notes on clauses, for what might happen when proposals were put in front of the Assembly, by which accommodations might be achieved.
The Bill does not lay down, and has no intention of laying down, to the Assembly in, to borrow a phrase, a "nannyish way" any rules about how accommodations should be achieved between different sections of the Assembly.

Mr. Molyneaux: If that is the case—and I do not doubt the Minister's word—and the Government have no wish to dominate the Assembly in any way, why is it necessary to go beyond the first line of section 25 of the 1973 Act, which simply says:
The Assembly shall make standing orders for regulating its procedure"?
Why do we need subsection (3) in the Bill?

Mr. Patten: We need subsection (3) because of the need to provide as many possible routes as may be available within the Assembly for accommodations to be reached within the Assembly, and between separate groups in the Assembly.

Mrs. Knight: The Minister mentioned the notes. An important point arises here. Earlier he said that the House had to make its mind up about whether any proposals have cross-community support. However, the notes say that power sharing is not required or ruled out. If power sharing is not required or ruled out, how is it that the House has to make its mind up about whether any proposals have cross-community support?

Mr. Patten: This will be a matter for later debates in Committee. The concept of cross-community support does not demand nor impose power sharing. It simply demands a measure of accommodation or agreement within the Assembly.
I say to the right hon. Member for Down, South and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South that it is the Government's policy to try to give the Assembly and its Members, should it be set up, via clause 1(3) and other provisions in the Bill, the maximum opportunities to take responsibility and power. That is a most important provision. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South that one could have the most perfectly drawn constitution in the world, but without political will, and without the good will of those who operate it, it cannot operate.

Sir Philip Goodhart: I appreciate that the Government are trying to be helpful as far as the Assembly is concerned. Can the Minister tell me who in the Assembly, under the present standing orders, will decide what will be discussed?

Mr. Patten: The first thing that the Assembly will have to discuss on the first happy day that it meets in Belfast, is who the presiding officer will be. From that stage on, the Assembly, taking responsibility and not being nannied by the House, will be able to come to agreements, numerous I dare say, between the different parties and the different interest groups in the Assembly as to what the standing orders provided for in clause 1(3) make possible.
It is for those reasons that we feel that this amendment must be resisted.

Mr. Jopling: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 133, Noes 18.

Division No. 182]
[2.22 am


AYES


Alexander,Richard
Haselhurst,Alan


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hawkins,Paul


Arnold,Tom
Hayhoe, Barney


Aspinwall,Jack
Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)


Baker,Kenneth(St. M'bone)
Holland,Philip(Carlton)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Hooson,Tom


Banks, Robert
Hordern,Peter


Beaumont-Dark,Anthony
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Benyon,W (Buckingham)
Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Jessel,Toby


Best, Keith
JohnsonSmith,Geoffrey


Bevan, David Gilroy
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Blackburn,John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Blaker, Peter
Lang, Ian


Boscawen,HonRobert
Lestor, MissJoan


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Lyell,Nicholas


Boyson,DrRhodes
MacGregor,John


Bright,Graham
MacKay,John (Argyll)


Brittan,Rt. Hon. Leon
Major,John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Marland,Paul


Browne,John(Winchester)
Marlow,Antony


Bruce-Gardyne,John
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Buck,Antony
Mather,Carol


Bulmer,Esmond
Mawby, Ray


Butler, Hon Adam
Mawhinney,DrBrian


Cadbury,Jocelyn
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Mellor,David


Carlisle,Kenneth(Lincoln)
Mills,Iain(Meriden)


Clarke,Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Moate,Roger


Colvin, Michael
Morrison, Hon P.(Chester)


Cope,John
Myles, David


Costain,SirAlbert
Neale,Gerrard


Crouch,David
Needham, Richard


Dorrell,Stephen
Nelson,Anthony


Douglas-Hamilton,LordJ.
Newton,Tony


Dover,Denshore
Normanton,Tom


Dunn,Robert(Dartford)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Eggar,Tim
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Elliott, SirWilliam
Patten, John(Oxford)


Eyre,Reginald
Pollock,Alexander


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Prior, Rt Hon James


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Raison,Rt Hon Timothy


Fletcher,A.(Ed'nb'gh N)
RhodesJames, Robert


Forman, Nigel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Goodlad, Alastair
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Gow, Ian
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Roper, John


Gray, Hamish
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Hamilton, Hon A.
Scott, Nicholas


Hampson, Dr Keith
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hannam, John
Shaw, Michael(Scarborough)






Shersby, Michael
Wall, SirPatrick


Silvester, Fred
Waller, Gary


Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield)
Ward, John


Speller, Tony
Wells, Bowen


Stevens, Martin
Wheeler, John


Stewart,A.(ERenfrewshire)
Whitney,Raymond


Stewart,Ian (Hitchin)
Wickenden,Keith


Stradling Thomas,J.
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Tapsell, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Young, SirGeorge (Acton)


Thompson, Donald
Younger, Rt Hon George


Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)



Viggers, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waddington, David
Mr, Selwyn Gummer and


Wakeham,John
Mr, Tristan Garel-Jones.


Waldegrave, HonWilliam





NOES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Molyneaux, James


Biggs-Davison, SirJohn
Murphy, Christopher


Brown, Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Budgen, Nick
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Cranborne, Viscount
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Goodhart, SirPhilip
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gorst, John
Walker, B. (Perth)


Knight, MrsJill



Lawrence, Ivan
Tellers for the Noes:


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Mr. William Ross and


McQuade, John
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 18, Noes 132.

Division No. 183]
[2.33 am


AYES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Molyneaux, James


Biggs-Davison, SirJohn
Murphy, Christopher


Brown, Michael(Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Budgen,Nick
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Cranborne,Viscount
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Goodhart,SirPhilip
Stanbrook,Ivor


Gorst,John
Walker, B. (Perth)


Knight, MrsJill



Lawrence,Ivan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Mr. William Ross and


McQuade,John
Mr. k. Harvey Proctor.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Cope, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Costain, SirAlbert


Arnold, Tom
Crouch, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Kenneth(St. M'bone)
Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Dover, Denshore


Banks, Robert
Dunn, Robert(Dartford)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Eggar, Tim


Benyon, W.(Buckingham)
Elliott, SirWilliam


Berry,HonAnthony
Eyre,Reginald


Best, Keith
Faith, MrsSheila


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Blackburn,John
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'ghN)


Blaker,Peter
Forman,Nigel


Boscawen,HonRobert
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Goodlad,Alastair


Boyson,Dr Rhodes
Gow, Ian


Bright,Graham
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Gray, Hamish


Brooke, Hon Peter
Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)


Browne,John (Winchester)
Hamilton, HonA.


Bruce-Gardyne,John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Buck,Antony
Hannam,John


Bulmer,Esmond
Haselhurst,Alan


Butler, Hon Adam
Hawkins, Paul


Cadbury,Jocelyn
Hayhoe, Barney


Campbell-Savours,Dale
Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)


Carlisle,Kenneth(Lincoln)
Holland,Philip(Carlton)


Clarke,Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Hooson,Tom


Colvin,Michael
Hordern,Peter





Hunt, David (Wirral)
Ridsdale,SirJulian


Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Jessel, Toby
Roper,John


JohnsonSmith,Geoffrey
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Jopling, RtHon Michael
Sainsbury,Hon Timothy


King, Rt Hon Tom
Scott,Nicholas


Lang, Ian
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lester,Jim (Beeston)
Shaw,Michael(Scarborough)


Lyell,Nicholas
Shersby,Michael


MacGregor,John
Silvester,Fred


MacKay,John (Argyll)
Smith,Tim(Beaconsfield)


Major,John
Speller,Tony


Marland,Paul
Stevens,Martin


Marlow,Antony
Stewart,A.(ERenfrewshire)


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Stewart,Ian(Hitchin)


Mather,Carol
Stradling Thomas,J.


Mawby, Ray
Tapsell, Peter


Mawhinney,DrBrian
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin
Thompson,Donald


Mellor,David
Townsend,Cyril D,(B'heath)


Mills,Iain(Meriden)
Viggers,Peter


Moate,Roger
Waddington,David


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Waldegrave,HonWilliam


Myles, David
Wall,SirPatrick


Neale,Gerrard
Waller, Gary


Needham,Richard
Ward,John


Nelson,Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Newton,Tony
Wheeler,John


Normanton,Tom
Whitney,Raymond


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wickenden,Keith


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Patten, John(Oxford)
Wolfson,Mark


Pollock,Alexander
Young, SirGeorge(Acton)


Prior, Rt Hon James
Younger, Rt Hon George


Raison,Rt Hon Timothy



RhodesJames, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Rhys Williams,Sir Brandon
Mr, Selwyn Gummer and


Ridley,Hon Nicholas
Mr. Trystan Garel-Jones

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. I am sorry to trouble you with a point of order that in no way attempts to question your decision to accept the motion for the closure. You were not in the Chair earlier when I raised a similar point of order, having tried to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair on numerous occasions in the first debate. I was unsuccessful then because a closure motion was accepted. I wish to draw to your attention the fact that, excluding the time allowed for the Minister, who intervened twice during the previous debate, approximately 50 minutes were allowed to three speakers.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not get into a discussion on my judgment as to when a closure motion is acceptable. I assure the Committee that all these matters are considered carefully and closures are accepted only when the Chair feels that they are justified.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
The amendments that are coming up for discussion, the first of which stands in my name, deal with an important aspect of the Bill. They go to the very heart of the matter, in that power sharing surfaces really and truly in this part of the Bill.
The Bill is important to Northern Ireland. It is only right that the people of Northern Ireland should have an opportunity of knowing what their elected representatives are saying here. They will not hear at this hour what


anyone from Northern Ireland has to say about their future Government. It would be right for the Government at this late stage, before we venture into a new series of amendments, to be prepared to say that we have made progress and that tomorrow is a new day when we can consider this important matter adequately. That is what should be done in the interests of the Committee, of the Government and of the future well-being of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Prior: It is true that the Committee has been sitting for quite a long time. It is equally true that we have made slow progress during the day. We need to press on with the measure. We recognise that this is an important group of amendments, but other groups of amendments have been considered in that light during the last few hours. I do not think one can say that a particular group of amendments is of that much greater importance than any other because of the amount of time spent discussing them.
I suggest to the Committee that we make a start on the next group of amendments but that we do not seek to complete the discussion on those amendments tonight but resume the discussion afresh tomorrow. If the Committee would agree to that proposal we could make progress for a period and then I would seek to move a motion to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
At this stage it is important to proceed, in the interests of making progress on the Bill and of showing the people of Northern Ireland that we are determined to get the Bill through. I regard this as very important. Therefore, I ask the Committee to continue the discussion for a further period, with the undertaking that I have given, and we will complete the discussion on this series of amendments tomorrow.

Mr. Budgen: I am sure that the Committee needs no words from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reinforce his determination to get the Bill through, but he does not need to say that to the people of Northern Ireland, because, with the sole exception of the Alliance Party, they do not want the Bill.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into the merits and demerits of the Bill.

Mr. Budgen: I am merely dealing with what my right hon. Friend said about his determination to get the Bill on to the statute book.
This is an important series of amendments, particularly amendment No. 15, which is vital to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). No doubt he will make a splendid speech for about an hour, if he is given the opportunity, between about 3.30 and 4.30. Although we all know that he is in the first league of orators and a man of considerable physical strength, he is not likely to be at his best at that time. The consequence of calling on his great powers at that hour will simply mean that he will then listen to the Minister and have to make a second speech—again, perhaps, of an hour or an hour and a half—at the resumption of business in 12 hours' time.
I respectfully suggest, Mr. Armstrong, that we shall have not only a better but a shorter debate—it cannot, of course, be a short debate—if we report progress now, with the frank assertion that we are all human and that at this

hour some are more human than others. I am very human, and I am sure that I am demonstrating, in making this point very badly, the repetitiousness into which, sadly, we all fall if we make speeches at this hour.

Mr. Gorst: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said. In doing so, I want to make it clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is correct when he says that we must get the Bill right—if we are to have the Bill. However, the right way to get it is not to carry on after 10 hours of consideration with another 10 hours, or whatever he is to allow us. After all, it is the quality of thought that matters. I have been here for most of the past 10 hours, and I have not yet made a contribution, except by way of a small occasional intervention.
Most of my right hon. and hon. Friends—indeed, all those who are taking part in this debate—want to get the Bill right. To do so at 3, 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning is not the right way to achieve that. It is often said by members of the press, who obviously cannot be here at this hour to witness what is happening, that the quality of our discussion and legislation suffers when we have these considerable extensions.
It has rightly been said that amendment No. 15 is vital, and that is the one to which we shall come next, if we continue. I urge my right hon. Friend to call it a day now and allow us to come back fresh to the matter. As my hon. Friend said, when we start later today we shall be able to give it a much shorter discussion. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear that in mind.

Mr. Amery: I have never doubted my right hon. Friend's stamina. He has given us a fine example of the machismo which motivates him, and which would be worthy of General Galtieri. Those of us who are strongly opposed to the Bill are happy to welcome the dawn through the windows of the House, as hon. Members did at the time of Pitt and Fox.
We are supposed to be an example of a caring society. We are supposed to have concern. I am worried, not about my hon. Friends who feel as strongly about the Bill as I do, but about the unhappy Back Benchers who have been mobilised by the Whips and driven into the Lobby to support my right hon. Friend on a measure which he knows is unpopular with the Cabinet and with the House of Commons. Do we really need to persecute them? We are quite happy. We will go on until doomsday. But we should remember Chaucer—the Prioress's Tale. It did not end very happily. Perhaps, on consideration, my right hon. Friend will give leave to the Back Benchers who have been coerced and driven into the Lobby to go home to their beds and to their wives, to sleep off the effects of this late sitting.

Mr. Stanbrook: I strongly support the motion, mainly because of the health of the Ministers concerned. It appears that the supporters of the Bill in the Chamber in the early hours of the morning consist mostly of what is sometimes known as the payroll vote. It certainly includes Ministers from Departments—[Hon. Members: "Withdraw."]

Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend is being most unkind to that important group of people, the Parliamentary Private Secretaries. They are not paid, even though they are important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) pointed out earlier.

Mr. Stanbrook: I have not yet begun to enumerate the various classes of people for whom I have the greatest sympathy. I have no sympathy whatsoever with the PPSs because it serves them right for obtaining a job without pay.
There are many Whips in the House, and, at a time when this nation is strugging in a war in the South Atlantic, the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces is here when he should really be attending to his duties or, at least, conserving his health so that tomorrow he may attend to his duties. I have also seen the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment in the Chamber.

Mr. Gorst: There is a solution to this problem. We could arrange some unofficial pairing for the really important people.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We must relate the debate to the motion before the Committee.

Mr. Stanbrook: I at least am endeavouring to do that, because this is a strictly practical problem. We cannot do our best work at this time of the morning, especially when we are dealing with one of the biggest problems in the Bill. Hon. Members are being kept up over 12 hours after we began our discussion of the Bill. We have had 12 hours of continuous discussion. There are Members in the Chamber who are responsible for running the Government of the country, who must deal with important matters, for which they need the best of health. I can see in the Chamber, for example, the Minister with responsibility for race relations and other Ministers. They must have important matters to deal with tomorrow.
This brings the parliamentary process into disrepute. Parliament is not a place for Ministers to spend their time simply waiting to go through the Lobbies. Their function is administration, to constitute the Executive and to be controlled by us. Discussion is for ordinary Members of Parliament. We who oppose the Bill are willing to discuss things. If the Government insist on going on, we shall be willing to do so continuously and, if necessary, to take out the business arranged for later today, but that is not the way in which Parliament should function. It should have a decent regard for the human frailties of its Members, especially those who have departmental responsibilities.
The fault might lie with the Whips that it has not been possible to allow Ministers to get a good night's sleep tonight so that they may do their jobs properly tomorrow. Many are being kept up tonight and prevented from having a proper night's sleep. That must lead to the disadvantage of the country as a whole, if not to Parliament. We depend upon Ministers to have cool heads and wise judgment in dealing with their work.
On behalf of Ministers, I support the plea that has been addressed to the Government—

3 am

Mr. Amery: Does my hon. Friend agree that much of the discussion concerns the relationship between the Executive and the Legislature, and that it would be dangerous if the Executive were subjected to such strain that it could not legislate effectively? I do not know, but perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not a member of the inner Cabinet that conducts the war on the Falklands. Perhaps he should be, but again I do not know. It is not for me to judge these matters. However, will we not be in some danger if we prolong the sitting,

with the result that my right hon. Friend and some of his colleagues may not be able to weigh the critical decisions that may lie ahead tomorrow about Port Stanley, for example, in the way that we would wish?

Mr. Stanbrook: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. We rely upon Ministers for the good and wise administration of the United Kingdom. They have a secondary role to play as legislators, but for the moment they are part of the Executive. We depend upon them as administrators, and that is their proper job. As legislators they are here simply and solely to vote. None of them will take part in the discussion. The Ministers of the responsible Department are here to do that. Other Ministers, upon whose good health and judgment we depend, should not be kept up at this time of night. It is nonsense and I protest at it.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I understand the desire of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make progress with the Bill, although I am not sure how widely that desire is shared. I think that we should do one thing or the other. I do not understand the logic of my right hon. Friend's proposal. The amendment opens up a considerable range of debate. We are moving into a new phase in Committee. We should either start afresh on the new phase or, if my right hon. Friend is determined to proceed, complete our consideration of the amendment.

Sir Philip Goodhart: It has been noticeable throughout the debate—it was equally noticeable on 27 May—that Labour Members have not been present in the Chamber. No Liberal Members have been present. We have had only one Social Democratic Party Member in the Chamber, the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams). The SDP spokesman on Northern Ireland has evidently been unable to be present. It is inconceivable that Labour Members, Liberal Members and SDP Members—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the motion before the House.

Mr. Joseph Dean: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. It should be brought to your attention, if an hon. Member is personalising absentees, that more than 100 Government supporters are not present, yet we are discussing a Government Bill.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Armstrong. I should like to point out that at least three other Members of the Social Democratic Party and two Members of the Liberal Party have been present during various parts of the debate.

The First Deputy Chairman: I remind the Committee that we are discussing a narrow matter—whether we ought to proceed with the debate. I hope that all speeches will be relevant to the motion.

Sir Philip Goodhart: I am sure that those hon. Members will wish to take part in the debate on the crucial amendments that we are about to discuss. If we follow the advice of the Secretary of State, those Members of the Labour and Liberal Parties, who I am sure will wish to participate, will not have the opportunity to hear the opening speeches. They will, therefore, be severely handicapped in tomorrow's discussions.

Viscount Cranborne: I should like to support the motion as strongly as I am able. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a fan of


Formula 1 motor racing. If he is not, I can assure him that neither am I, but I happened to turn on a most interesting resume of the Detroit Grand Prix on the television last weekend. I assure you, Mr. Armstrong, that this little incursion into the world of sport is entirely relevant to the motion. Those hon. Members who are interested in motor racing will recall that, in an attempt to circumnavigate a track as narrow as the scope of the motion, the contestants failed to complete more than seven laps. As a result, the race had to be started again. All commentators, as far as I was able to ascertain, came to the conclusion that that was a most unsatisfactory precedent. As a result, I am glad to say, the race was won by an Englishman. [Interruption] I beg your pardon, Mr. Armstrong, I have been corrected.

Mr. Budgen: This is an historic moment: a Patronage Secretary has spoken in the Chamber.

Viscount Cranborne: I have been corrected by the Patronage Secretary. The race was won by an Irishman, which makes the point even more relevant—and a Northern Irishman to boot.
We have before us an example of another race which, if we stopped now, will go for perhaps seven laps and then have to start again tomorrow without the benefit of a video recording in the shape of Hansard to guide our steps. My right hon. Friend, with whose desire to make progress I am entirely sympathetic, would do far better if he allowed us to start off on this important group of amendments tomorrow rather than at this late hour tonight.

Mr. Lawrence: As you know, Mr. Armstrong, I have not yet taken the opportunity of trying to catch the eye of any Chairman during the debate. I have been saving up my energies and enthusiasms for the important amendment that is about to be proposed by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). As hon. Members know, once I get started on a matter that consumes my interest, it has been known to be somewhat difficult to stop me. I can remind the House of occasions when I have spoken for more than an hour. Of course, that does not outstrip the capabilities of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I rise to assist my right hon. Friend and the Committee in this way. I have come prepared to make a contribution of some length on the next group of amendments. I make my right hon. Friend an offer that he should find hard to refuse. If he will accept my invitation to end the debate now, I will undertake to remain silent throughout all the speeches attracted by the next group of amendments. I can think of no greater sacrifice that I could make in the causes for which I speak. I do so on behalf of all of my hon. Friends who are gathered together, I believe, in anticipation of the contribution that I intended to make. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that invitation as seriously as I offer it. If he will now rise to accept it, I promise to remain silent on the next group of amendments.

Mr. Michael Brown: I support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in suggesting that we should continue the proceedings and try to make progress. For nine or 10 hours, at most times, there have been no more than 20 or 25 right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber. We now come to what for me at any rate is

clearly the most important series of amendments. Until 15 or 20 minutes ago, there was nothing like the number of right hon. and hon. Members now present. It is clear from the number who are now here that everyone realises that we are now coming to a crucial part of the Bill.

Mr. Gorst: Is my hon. Friend absolutely certain that if we carried on he would be able to persuade the larger number of his colleagues now present to think as he thinks? Would it not be better to get them with fresh minds?

Mr. Brown: The 130 or 140 of my hon. Friends who so far have been able to make a judgment on the Bill without actually being present may regard this group of amendments as so crucial that I need to be convinced. They may indeed be there waiting to make important speeches on the amendments. On the assumption that they have come not just to listen to this procedural debate but to contribute to the debate on the group of amendments that we shall discuss next if my right hon. Friend, as I hope, gets his way, I believe that we should now proceed. My right hon. Friend should regard the sudden filling up of the Chamber as an indication of the very great interest in the next group of amendments. The debate should therefore run for a very long time, as one can only assume that about 100 hon. Members will be seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Armstrong.
I hope, therefore, that the Committee will accept my right hon. Friend's view. I go further. I believe that he should capitalise on the fact that, after nine hours, there appears at last to be some interest in this great and important constitutional measure.

Mr. William Ross: Chairmen come and go during these debates, Mr. Armstrong, but some of the rest of us go on for ever. The debates have been most interesting and we have all listened to them with keen attention. My interest in what has passed back and forth across the Chamber and sometimes up and down it has meant that by the time I had collected my thoughts properly to make a contribution to each of the debates I was passed over. For me, this is a most unfortunate state of affairs. The Committee will appreciate how bitterly I feel about it.
3.15 am
If we embark on the debate on the next group of amendments, we could have another 12 or 14 hours' debate. Then perhaps we could adjourn, get a night's sleep, come back if the business were postponed to the next day and carry on from there. There is no good reason for supposing that the debate on this important group of amendments, considering the interest that is now being shown, will be terminated even in that 12 or 14 hours. It is essential that we should get the Bill right. We cannot get it right if the people of Ulster are to be lumbered with nonsense such as the 70 per cent. rule, which we want to discuss now.
In those circumstances, I should have thought that a detailed examination of that important matter was vital and that we should allow a considerable time for it.

Question put, That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again:—

The Committee divided: Ayes, 18, Noes 114.

Division No. 184]
[3.16 am


AYES


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Budgen,Nick


Biggs-Davison,SirJohn
Cranborne,Viscount






Goodhart,SirPhilip
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Gorst,John
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Knight,MrsJill
Stanbrook,Ivor


Lawrence,Ivan
Walker, B. (Perth)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


McQuade,John



Molyneaux,James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Murphy,Christopher
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor and


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. William Ross.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
MacGregor,John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Arnold,Tom
Major,John


Baker,Kenneth(St. M'bone)
Marland,Paul


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Banks,Robert
Mather,Carol


Beaumont-Dark,Anthony
Mawby, Ray


Benyon,W.(Buckingham)
Mawhinney,DrBrian


Berry, HonAnthony
Maxwell-Hyslop,Robin


Best, Keith
Mellor,David


Bevan, David Gilroy
Mills,Iain(Meriden)


Blackburn,John
Moate, Roger


Blaker, Peter
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Myles, David


Boyson,Dr Rhodes
Neale,Gerrard


Bright,Graham
Needham, Richard


Brittan,Rt. Hon. Leon
Nelson,Anthony


Brooke, Hon Peter
Newton,Tony


Brown,Michael (Brigg&amp;Sc'n)
Normanton,Tom


Browne,Jobn(Winchester)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Bruce-Gardyne,John
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Buck,Antony
Patten,John(Oxford)


Bulmer,Esmond
Pollock,Alexander


Butler, Hon Adam
Prior, Rt Hon James


Cadbury,Jocelyn
RhodesJames, Robert


Carlisle,Kenneth (Lincoln)
RhysWilliams,SirBrandon


Colvin,Michael
Ridley,HonNicholas


Cope,John
Ridsdale,SirJulian


Costain,SirAlbert
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Crouch,David
Sainsbury,Hon Timothy


Dorrell,Stephen
Scott,Nicholas


Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Dover,Denshore
Shaw,Michael (Scarborough)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Shersby,Michael


Eggar,Tim
Silvester, Fred


Elliott,SirWilliam
Smith,Tim(Beaconsfield)


Eyre,Reginald
Speller, Tony


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Stevens, Martin


Forman, Nigel
Stewart, A. (ERenfrewshire)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Garel-Jones,Tristan
Stradling Thomas,J.


Goodlad,Alastair
Tapsell, Peter


Gow, Ian
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Grant, Anthony (HarrowC)
Thompson,Donald


Gray, Hamish
Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)


Hamilton, Hon A,
Viggers, Peter


Hampson, Dr Keith
Waddington,David


Hannam,John
Waldegrave,HonWilliam


Haselhurst,Alan
Waller, Gary


Hawkins,Paul
Wells, Bowen


Hayhoe, Barney
Wheeler,John


Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)
Wickenden, Keith


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Wolfson,Mark


Jessel, Toby
Young, SirGeorge (Acton)


JohnsonSmith,Geoffrey
Younger, Rt Hon George


Jopling, RtHonMichael



Lang, Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Lyell,Nicholas
Mr. Selwyn Gummer

Question accordingly negatived.

The First Deputy Chairman: We now come to which it will be convenient to amendment No. 15, with which it will be convienient to take the following:
No. 16, in page 2, line 11, leave out subsection (4).
No. 17, in page 2, line 13, leave out paragraph (a).
No. 18, in page 2, line 13, leave out from '(a)' to 'at'.
No. 19, in page 2, line 13, leave out 'the proposals
have,' and insert
'every such proposal at that time submitted has'.
No. 20, in page 2, line 14, after 'Assembly', insert
'who have taken their seats and voted on the proposals'
No. 21, in page 2, line 14, after 'Assembly', insert
'voting thereon'.
No. 22, in page 2, line 14, after 'Assembly' insert
'have voted for those proposals'.
No. 98, in page 2, line 14, after 'Assembly', insert 'present and voting'.
No. 117, in page 2, line 14, after 'Assembly', insert
'drawn from all sections of the community'.
No. 23, in page 2, line 15, leave out from beginning to first 'the' in line 16.
No. 24, in page 2, line 15, leave out paragraph (b).
No. 25, in page 2, line 15, leave out 'the proposals have,' and insert
'every such proposal at that time submitted has'.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order. Mr. Armstrong. I should like to raise a point of order about the grouping of these amendments. It is a point of which I gave earlier notice to the Chairman of Ways and Means.
My submission is that it would be greatly to the convenience of the Committee and to the advantage of debate if these 13 amendments were divided into three groups, as they deal with three essentially separate subjects.
Perhaps it would be simplest if I demonstrated this by starting at the end with amendment No. 25. That amendment deals with a matter completely separate from the question of the 70 per cent., or whatever, majority that is required for the submission of proposals. Amendment No. 25, which at present is grouped with the remainder, deals with whether the proposals should be put and voted upon as a whole, and only as a whole, or separately.
I am in no way seeking to argue the merits or the substance but simply to point out that this is a totally distinct subject from the question what the majority voting ought to be. I hope that that suggestion will commend itself to the Chairman of Ways and Means. I believe Mat we should separate amendment No. 25 from the other dozen, thus making it a real and not a baker's dozen and enabling us to take separately a subject that is inherently distinct.
My other proposition is that amendments Nos. 20 to 22 and 98—four amendments in all—could with great advantage and logic be separated from the 12.
That would mean that we would have eight amendments on the question of the majority and these four amendments on the separate question of whether it should be a majority of those present and voting or a majority of the members of the Assembly.
I know that the perception of the Chair in these matters is anything but superficial, Out superficially there might seem to be some relationship between the topics contained in the eight and four amendments which I am asking the Chair to take separately.
If, Mr. Armstrong, you consider the matter more closely, you will see that the requirement of a majority is essentially distinct—and above all, in Northern Ireland conditions is really distinct—from whether the majority should be taken of those attending or of those who are elected to the Assembly.
3.30 am
I mention, to clarify that point, that one method of political expression in Northern Ireland is to secure election and not take advantage of having been elected. In some areas it has been an endemic custom. The consequences of that as a possible tactic for the working and application of this clause are clearly distinct, and the principles at issue are distinct from any that may be used to defend the requirement of a minimum percentage in support.
I submit, Mr. Weatherill—I have already given notice of my submission—that we have before us not 13 amendments relating to the same topic, but eight relating to one topic, four to another and one to yet a third. Perhaps it might seem unreasonable, although there is no earlier stage at which I could, in accordance with custom and the rules of order, have made this submission, to invite the Chair at this stage in the proceedings, with the first amendment called and about to be moved, to modify the provisional grouping and selection.
However, that difficulty has been removed for us fortuitously, but happily, by a declaration by the Secretary of State a little time ago, in which he intimated that he did not anticipate pursuing this topic to the bitter end in this sitting but that we should resume the examination of the question at the next. The Committee has already had evidence of your readiness, Mr. Weatherill, to make the provisionality of grouping and selection a reality and not a mere pretence, and to consider, as the Committee went on with its proceedings, whether the grouping and selection should be modified. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to ask you at this hour and at this moment, before we embark upon the discussion, to enable us to consider these 13 amendments in the more rational and convenient grouping of eight plus four plus one.
Although it is essentially a matter for the Chair and not for the Minister, I wonder whether this might not be an unwelcome suggestion to the Secretary of State. I am sure that, in exercising your judgment, that would not weigh with you, Mr. Weatherill. Nevertheless, it is bound to weigh with the Secretary of State, if with no one else. In my opinion, the more logical arrangement, and consequently a tighter relevance of each of the three debates, would result in less time being consumed in total. A much more satisfactory debate and consideration would ensue than if we were to roll all these subjects together so that one hon. Member after another might, haphazard as he caught your eye, deal first with one aspect, then with another and then with something irrelevant altogether to the question to which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is about to address himself, but relevant to one of the questions that is grouped with amendment No. 15.
Therefore, Mr. Weatherill, I hope that, with the benefit of what lucubration may be available to yourself and to us before the Committee resumes this afternoon, you would, in accordance with your custom, address your mind to the question whether you could help the Committee by suggesting an amended grouping of those 13 amendments.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having written to me about this matter before we went into recess. He will have noted from the selection list in the No Lobby today that I considered his suggestions. Indeed, I made one alteration concerning amendment No. 13. On that

occasion, and again today at a selection conference, I looked at the right hon. Gentleman's other suggestions. I regret that I cannot agree to his suggestions. I cannot change the selection now. I have looked at it carefully. However, it would be open to the right hon. Gentleman if he so wished to ask for separate Divisions on the amendments Nos. 20, 21, 22 and 98 grouping.

Mr. Powell: I am grateful, Mr. Weatherill. I hope that you will not regard it as disparaging if I say that I was glad to have the crumb of comfort that you let fall in the conclusion of your ruling that we shall be able to divide upon amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 98. No doubt the same would apply, by parity of reasoning, to amendment No. 25. However, I should not like the wrong implication to be deduced from your reference to the availability of a Division on those amendments, that only one Division would be allowed by yourself, or whoever was in the Chair, on the remaining eight amendments. It may well be represented to you that a number of those amendments, dealing, as every individual amendment of the 13 does, with a different aspect and a different means of curing the vice in the Bill, might be the subject of separate Divisions.
Therefore, I hope that we shall not find ourselves restricted, as might have been deduced from the words that fell from you, to a mere six Divisions on amendments Nos. 15, and then, as you have said, 20, 21 and 22, then 25 and later 98.

The Chairman: I do not think that I said that. May I repeat what I did say? As I understand it, before I came into the Chair the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting a different grouping of amendments—amendment No. 25 and then amendments Nos. 20, 21, 22 and 98. The way to get over the difficulty is for the right hon. Gentleman to make his submission about separate Divisions at the appropriate time and I will consider them.

Mr. Powell: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Weatherill, for that. I should know, but I confess that I do not, what would be the appropriate time for making a submission in regard to the propriety or otherwise of a Division. It is often helpful to know some time in advance on which amendments Divisions will take place. Would I be right in assuming that if representations were made personally to the Chair during the course of the debate that is about to begin, that would be the approach that would meet with your approval?

The Chairman: That would be perfectly in order.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Before I move my amendment I should like to put to you the fact that amendment No. 20, standing in the names of my hon. Friends and myself is really a fall-back amendment to amendment No. 15. If amendment No. 15 is defeated, I should want a vote on amendment No. 20, which deals with whether the 70 per cent. proposition relates to the entire membership of the Assembly or to those who are present at the particular time.
That, of course, is important. If eight Members of the Assembly absent themselves, 80 per cent. of the Assembly will be needed. If 16 Members absent themselves, 90 per cent. of the Assembly will be needed. It is vital that the House should have the opportunity to vote on that amendment, as it is central to the Bill. Therefore, may I ask whether my hon. Friends and I will be able to vote on amendment No. 20?

The Chairman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising his point of order. I shall consider his representations and let him know my conclusion.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 2, line 11, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
'(4) The Assembly shall not submit any proposals under this section unless the proposals have the support of a majority of the members of the Assembly.'.

The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we shall discuss amendments Nos. 16 to 22, 98, 117, and 23 to 25.

Rev. Ian Paisley: As has been said, we have reached an important part of the Bill. In plain language, we see the genius in the Bill's drafting of an Executive appointed by the Assembly. The two propositions are:
The Assembly shall not submit any proposals under this section unless—

(a) the proposals have the support of at least 70 per cent. of the members of the Assembly; or
(b) the proposals have the support of a majority of those members and the Secretary of State has notified the Assembly that he is satisfied that the substance of the proposals is likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community."

We have reached the provisions in the Bill that failed completely when the Act upon which the Bill is based was enacted and when the Assembly was brought into existence.
No matter how clever or talented a Secretary of State may be, we all know that he is not in a position to satisfy himself that those proposals command widespread acceptance throughout the community without that one great discipline of democracy, the ballot box. How can any Secretary of State ignore and reject the ballot box yet say that proposals command widespread acceptance? My point can be illustrated by reference to the ill-fated power-sharing Executive. A Secretary of State told the world that he had discovered a body of men who commanded the widespread acceptance of the community. In reply to my question about when we would have an opportunity to vote, the Secretary of State said that we would not have an opportunity to vote for four years. However, providentially, there was an election and 11 hon. Members out of 12 who were opposed to that power-sharing Executive were returned to the House. That was positive proof, through the ballot box, that what the Secretary of State believed had widespread acceptance did not have such widespread acceptance.
3.45 am
I happened to be present when the Executive was installed. I counted 44 army vehicles parked around the Parliament buildings. Forty-four armoured vehicles were required to put an Executive into office that was supposed to have widespread acceptance in the community. When the ballot was taken, that Executive, of course, fell. If the House proceeds again in that way, it will only court disaster and failure. That will certainly not work.
There is only one discipline in a democracy, and that is the ballot box. If the House is saying to the people of Northern Ireland "We do not accept the ballot box", it is far better to tell the people clearly, as we would say in Ulster, with a tooth in it. Let us hear that and then we shall know the attitude of the Government and the Secretary of State. I wholeheartedly believe in the supremacy of the ballot box. The party that I lead cannot support any scheme or system that would have the effect of undermining or

upstaging the democratically expressed will of the people. That is a fundamental principle. It seems strange that in the twentieth century in the House of Commons, which is supposed to be the sanctuary of democratic principles, a Member has to argue that that democratic principle should operate in part of the United Kingdom.
I met the Prime Minister some time ago. I said to her "Prime Minister, there are millions of people in the United Kingdom who do not like you and your policies, but they have to accept you because you were put there by the will of the people democratically expressed. I know that you do not like me, but you have to abide with me because I am here because of the will of the people of Northern Ireland."
The suggestion in the Bill is that if we like what the ballot box turns up we shall accept it; if we do not like what it turns up we shall reject it. That is the principle underlying this proposal. That is obnoxious to those of us who believe in democracy in Northern Ireland and in the ballot box. The ballot box in our country has been degraded. We have seen the result of that.
All types of people have been mentioned in the Committee today. The Labour Party silent sentinels, as they have been called, were told that they should take a leaf out of a certain Mr. Carr's book. I am sure that they do not want to take a leaf out of his book as that would mean that they would forfeit their deposit and never be elected. It is utter nonsense. We have people in Northern Ireland who have a panacea for all our ills, but when they submit themselves to the electorate they are not accepted and they cannot be elected. Yet we are told by the House that those are the kind of people that we should follow. Let them submit themselves to the electorate and see what the electorate has to say.
No one should be in the Government of any country as of right. That is a principle that the House should pay attention to. But behind the adventures into trying to doctor democracy and democratic principles is the aim to put people as of right into Government.
If members of the SDLP want to be in the Government of Northern Ireland—they have told me that they must be in the Government and that we shall never have a Government in Northern Ireland unless they are—they must get there by the ballot box. They continually tell us that the majority of people in Northern Ireland want power sharing—they want that type of government. The SDLP and everyone else who wants it can have a coalition. The opinion polls tell us that the SDLP has won hands down. Let it get its majority. If it does so, it is entitled to form a Government.
Those who believe in democratic principles must sit on the Opposition Benches. I should be happy to lead or participate in an Opposition against a Government who controlled a majority in the House. That is democracy. But if the SDLP cannot get a majority by the democratic process, the House cannot turn a minority into a majority, which is what it is attempting to do.
We had a change of the election system. I listened to debates in the House years ago. We were told that if we had a single transferable vote things would change; the Unionists would no longer have a majority. At the last council elections there was an increase in the total Unionist vote, and that was on STV. No matter what the election system, if a party has a majority it will get there anyway.
It was thought in the House that the system would destroy certain groups and encourage others and bring


them to a place where they would then be a majority. But that did not happen. All the attempts to do that will not bring it about. There can be no place as of right for anyone.

Mr. Lawrence: I have a particular difficulty about subsection 4(b), which the hon. Gentleman is more fitted to help with than any other hon. Member. It requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the proposals are
likely to command widespread acceptance".
As I understand it, the Secretary of State says that the proposals in the Bill command the widespread acceptance of the people of Northern Ireland. I also understand that those who oppose him on the Bill deny that. What is the truth as between the two sides? If the opposition is right, what confidence can be placed at the outset in the proposal as the Bill stands?

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on a sore point for the Secretary of State. But the right hon. Gentleman has the remedy in his own hands. There is a proposal for a referendum. Let it be submitted to the people. Let him accept the amendment and let the people decide whether there is widespread acceptance. The matter should be tested.
Let us look at the Government to be constructed. What happens if we put people into government with views that cannot be reconciled? There can be no reconciliation between someone committed to the destruction of Northern Ireland and taking us into the Irish Republic and someone who believes that Northern Ireland should continue to be part of the United Kingdom. Of course they can live together, as they have lived together in Northern Ireland for years. They do not need to throw stones or bombs at each other. They can live and work together, but politically they cannot be reconciled.
One characteristic of good government is collective responsibility. How can we have collective responsibility when one part of the Cabinet—to take political ideology—believes in Socialism and the other part believes in capitalism? We had that sort of Government and what happened? Every time there was a problem Brian Faulkner discovered that his partners in the SDLP were in Dublin consulting their friends in the Dublin Government. That was totally repugnant to the majority of people in Northern Ireland. Can the Secretary of State tell us how there can be collective responsibility in this so-called power-sharing structure?
In that set-up the Government are not responsible to the Assembly. The Government are brought together by parties who make an agreement to their advantage. Each party has the power of veto, so if one party does not like what the other party wishes to do it may say that it will leave. If it leaves, devolution—to use the Secretary of State's term—rolls in. All the progress that has been made will be destroyed. Each group has great powers and can overthrow the entire set-up. No one would accept that that will lead to stable government in Northern Ireland. Democratic government ceases to exist under this system. Each group in the Government has an effective veto on every Government decision. If an unpopular decision must be made and one section says that it will leave, the Government no longer have widespread acceptance, the Secretary of State must step in, roll it up, take away the portfolios of Ministers and we are back to square one. How will the Secretary of State get over that problem?
Another factor is that there is no effective opposition. We saw that in the Assembly because those who would have formed the Opposition withdrew. The Unionists left the Assembly to function with the Faulknerite Unionists, the SDLP and the Alliance Party. They had their own meetings. One day the Assembly met for 20 minutes because there was no Opposition. Everyone said "We are all in this together. We cannot afford to criticise. We must not rock the boat." So there was no effective opposition. How will the Secretary of State have a good Government in Northern Ireland without an Opposition?
A constitution that ensures power-sharing is bound to fail if, at a future election, a majority of Members of the new Parliament refuse to operate the system.
4 am
There will be a majority in the new Parliament who will say that they do not agree with it and will not co-operate and that will be the end of the matter. It must be remembered that there will be a Unionist majority in the Assembly, whether the Committee likes it or not. It cannot be any other way because 1 million people are dedicated to upholding the Union. So what will happen? The majority will be Unionist and will say that they will not work the system. The system will fail and the whole proposal will become unstuck.
This is an unworkable proposition. A constitution guaranteeing power-sharing would provide no impetus or incentive for change with regard to political allegiances. It could freeze and fossilise existing party structure and, in short, institutionalise sectarianism in government.
If a Government is made up in this way, the people can never change that Government because all the parties will be in the Government anyway. So no matter how one votes, one cannot change the Government because there will be X SDLP members, X Alliance members and X Unionists who believe in power-sharing, if there are any Unionists left who do so, and the other Unionists will be completely outside the Government. That is the system which will be set up under the Bill. How then can one change the Government? Surely democracy means that there must be a way in which the people can change the Government of the country.
Power-sharing makes a mockery of the principle of receiving a mandate. When the electorate endorses the policy of a party, it has a right to expect that policy to be implemented. How could the SDLP expect Unionists to implement its policy and how could the Unionists expect the SDLP to implement their policy? It cannot be done. It is ludicrous to suggest that this is the way the Ulster people should go. It would lead to a completely ineffective Government unable to move in any direction lest they offended one group or the other.
In this structure the minority is to have the same rights as the majority. In any democratic system a majority must be a majority and must be treated as such. What the Government are saying is that we do not need elections; let all the parties agree and get together. According to the Government, elections are no good because they will not alter the situation one iota.
We have before us a proposal that there are two ways in which the executive can come into being. If 70 per cent. of the Assembly agree that this is the way it should go, that proposal will be put to Parliament. Can the Secretary of State answer a straight question? Has that 70 per cent. to be a coloured 70 per cent.? Is it to have within it


Republicans or those who want to destroy the people of Northern Ireland? If it is, there is no use in the Secretary of State trying to go any further because in no way would the people of Northern Ireland accept that situation.
But if there comes about a situation in the Assembly in which 70 per cent. vote that they should have power in a certain way, will the Secretary of State come to Parliament and recommend that there should be devolved government for Northern Ireland? Or will he say that he does not like the colour of the people who make up the 70 per cent. and therefore cannot recommend the proposal to the House? The Secretary of State should tell us plainly tonight. The people of Northern Ireland are entitled to an answer to that question and we need to have it straight and clear.
Let us consider the other proposal—50 per cent. plus one—as it includes a cross-community basis. I wonder what that cross-community basis is. Is it Protestants and Roman Catholics. Is it Unionists and Republicans? What is it? The Minister should spell it out. I have been told that, if the Alliance Party and the Unionist Party got together, that would not be considered to be cross-community power-sharing. There would need to be committed Republicans in that Government. However, no Unionist worth his salt would go into a Government with committed Republicans. Whether this Committee likes that or not, it happens to be a fact of life. People in this House say "The politicians of Northern Ireland should be brave and surrender their principles". We have seen it all before, and it resulted in chiefs without Indians. People said that they were leading the people, but no one was following. The majority of the people of Ulster are convinced that their future is to remain part of the United Kingdom, and they want no truck with the Republic. When one touches them on that point, one touches them at the very quick of their political thinking.
There are other people, the minority, who take the opposite view. Their future, they say, is with the South of Ireland, and they look to the day when they can take us all into the Republic. There is only one thing that stands in their way, and that is the ballot box. The great strength of the Unionist people is their power at the ballot box.
I do not understand why this Committee says to the people of Northern Ireland "By the ballot box you can decide whether you will remain in the United Kingdom, but you cannot decide how you will be governed by the same democratic principle of the ballot box". Surely, if the people are deciding their constitutional future by the ballot box, they should be entitled to decide their administrative and legislative future by the same means.
The Secretary of State should realise that, when the election comes and the Assembly is formed, the day of truth will come. There is no way in which the Unionists—and the majority in the Assembly will be Unionists—will be prepared to sell their principles and say "We are prepared to enter into Government with Republicans". I stress that it is not a matter of religion; it is a matter of political outlook. There are Roman Catholics who believe in the Union and who vote for the Union. There are Roman Catholics who even vote for me. I know that because there is an island in my constituency called Rathlin, where there are only two Protestants, yet I get 17, 18 and 20 votes from that island. I always look at the Rathlin voting box, which comes over on the boat. Under the STV system, one might have some idea of how Roman Catholics vote, because at the European election thousands of people voted 1. John Hume, 2. Ian Paisley.

Those who voted for John Hume were certainly not Protestants. I did not need their second preference votes, because I had too many first preference votes. So I stress that there are Roman Catholics who are Unionists.
But evidently they do not count in this situation. One has to be a strong committed Republican. If strong committed Republicans are prepared to get into this power sharing business, with 50 per cent. plus one, a Government can be formed. The House of Commons must face this matter. The people of Northern Ireland have faced it before. It should have learnt the lesson but evidently it has not. It seems that we are to go down the same road again.
What will the Secretary of State do when we have the Assembly with a Unionist majority if that majority says that it will not go down the same road again? What will we do then? Will the House of Commons still stick to the proposals? If it does, the Assembly can do its good work. There is good work to do in looking after the committees and playing scrutinising and consultative roles. That is a job that it can do and should do. But when it comes to the crucial issue of having real devolved powers, how will the House of Commons act then? The way mapped out in these proposals will not be workable.
I turn now to the 70 per cent. issue. Should it be 70 per cent. of the membership or should it be 70 per cent. of those taking part? There will be those elected to the Assembly who will not attend. There is a Member elected to this place who does not attend. His votes might form three quotas, so there could be at least three who will not attend. Others have said that they will abstain. If there are abstentions, it will not be 70 per cent. of the whole Assembly. If eight persons abstain, 80 per cent. of the participating membership is needed before one can go further. If 16 abstain, 90 per cent. of the participating Assembly is needed.
It is impossible for any elected Assembly to function in that way. The Secretary of State has complained—I can understand his complaint—that we are not making much progress. But if he had to get a 70 per cent. vote every time one of the amendments was debated, he would take a long time to make progress.
We must face the requirement of 70 per cent. and certainly 70 per cent. of all participating. The Secretary of State is anxious that everyone who is elected should participate. If the Secretary of State said that we should have 70 per cent. of all those who participated, that would take the teeth out of the tactic of abstention and would encourage those who were elected to go to the Assembly, to make their views known, to stand up for their political principles in the Assembly, and to fight their battles on the floor of the Assembly and not by abstention.
The time has come for the Committee to face the fact that power-sharing proposals in the past have failed and will fail again in future. It would be better for the Secretary of State to tell us what he intends to do if and when the Assembly has a Unionist majority which is not prepared to go down this road. I also ask him to spell out this 70 per cent. structure. If it is 70 per cent. clean regardless of political colour or political persuasion, is he prepared to recommend that to the House of Commons?
The people of Northern Ireland are entitled to have that assurance or clarification from the Minister. It is a sad day for the Province when in the House of Commons we do not face the realities and when we express views and introduce principles that cannot work. Let us give the


people of Northern Ireland a possibility. When the Assembly is appointed, when the people do the work that they can do from day one, and when the House of Commons sees that the work is being done and done well, I hope that it will have a change of heart. There will be no way forward if we stick to this principle that there must be power-sharing and that that is the only way forward in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Michael Brown: I, too, am concerned about the drafting of the 70 per cent. agreement. I shall address my remarks to the difficulties that could occur in the Assembly when it tries to do the work with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is seeking to charge it.
I have thought about the possible outcome if we sought in this place to determine our business according to whether we were able to obtain support from minority groupings. As the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said, in the new Assembly, if it is eventually elected, there will be those who hold to a Socialist view of Northern Ireland, those who hold to a belief in private enterprise and those who are Unionists who are Catholics, and who will be bound to support a form of Unionism. If we are to expect the Assembly to be capable of taking decisions, we shall have to accept that sometimes there will not be a 70 per cent. majority for the Assembly moving forward and accepting a devolved form of Government.
I look to the crucial and critical decisions that have been taken at various times by the House of Commons, such as on whether the Government should continue or on a certain Act of Parliament. I can think of few occasions when 70 per cent. of the membership of the House of Commons supported a particular measure. My election to this place was determined indirectly by a majority of one in the House of Commons, which precipitated the 1979 general election, the change of policy and the change of Government.
If we are to try to get decisions taken in Northern Ireland, we must accept that the likelihood of there being an agreement of 70 per cent. of the participating membership will be extremely rare and almost inconceivable, especially if we bear in mind the mood of public opinion in Northern Ireland.
The allegiance to party there has not changed significantly in the past 10 years. There have been several electoral tests. There was the election of the power-sharing Executive in the early 1970s, the general elections of 1974 and 1979 and elections for the European Parliament. In spite of the attempt to prevent one party from having a clear majority by the single transferable vote system that has been used in many elections, opinion in Northern Ireland is reasonably fixed. It would not take too much gazing into a crystal ball to gain an idea of what the balance of the parties would be in an Assembly were an election held in the latter part of this year.
It is clear to everyone who takes an interest in Northern Ireland matters that a reconciliation of political differences, to the extent of 70 per cent. support in an Assembly for a move towards devolution, could not be obtained.
These amendments go to the heart of the Bill. The 70 per cent. will contain the seeds of destruction of my right

hon. Friend's intentions. If there is to be any hope of success along the lines that the Secretary of State would like, we must recognise that a simple majority is all that we can hope for. I am mindful of what the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said about how people might interpret a straight forward 50 plus one majority.
In a local authority in which there was a balance of power between the Labour and Conservative Parties, and yet there was a substantial minority of immigrant voters, it would be intolerable if the council sought to take decisions without having regard to cross-community support. We always assume that the people who are charged with the responsibility of representing all of their electorate act in their own way and are accountable to the whole electorate at the end of their term of office. In large metropolitan areas such as the West Midlands and West Yorkshire there are many minority groups. The argument that my right hon. Friend is using in the Bill might just as well be applied to the local authorities of areas with high immigrant populations.
I am sure that Members in all parts of the Committee would regard it as completely impracticable to seek cross-community support and to try to ensure that if the electorate does not do what the Government wish the Government should be able to impose some extra restriction on the Assembly. I am sure that that would be regarded as wrong.
The same is true of this requirement. I hope that my right hon. Friend will therefore recognise that it is unlikely that his proposals will have much chance of success unless he recognises that a straightforward method of reaching a decision on devolution should be adopted by the Assembly in exactly the same way as we take decisions in the House of Commons.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Rather than moving formally to report progress, may one inquire what the Government's intentions are with regard to the progress of the debate? One of the amendments stands in the name of the Opposition, and the structure of the debate is clearly a matter of interest to all who are likely to participate in it. Perhaps the Secretary of State could give some indication of the Government's intention in this regard.

Mr. Prior: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Although we have recently voted on a motion to report progress and have decided to continue the debate, I notice that at least three hon. Members on this side of the House have been seeking to catch your eye. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) will probably also wish to contribute to the debate, as will the Opposition Front Bench. I suggest that we continue for a time and hear the speeches at any rate of the three hon. Members on this side. The right hon. Member for Down, South might also like to make a short contribution. We might then report progress.

Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. If we are to have a useful debate, I should have expected to hear from the Secretary of State at an early stage so that the justification, if any, that he can give for the subsection as it stands would be before us before the principal contributions to the debate are made.

Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I have referred in the past to a most helpful


article by Miss Van Hattem in which she refers to the 70 per cent. proposals. I shall not bother the Committee at length with this, but it seems that there is a serious possibility that the Government may wish to make a concession on these proposals, which have been described as not being sacrosanct. Therefore, I hope that we shall hear from the Secretary of State at an early stage. I am sure that I speak for a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends who say that they are really undecided about this and the 70 per cent. proposal could be a most useful buffer to prevent conflict between the Assembly and Westminster. We should like to know the Secretary of State's view now. Having heard and considered it, we would then wish to respond at some later stage.

The Chairman: That is not a point of order, but the Secretary of State will have heard what has been said.

Mr. Amery: I intervene briefly at this late stage in the debate.

Mr. Powell: It is an early stage in this debate.

Mr. Amery: I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is trespassing on the frontiers of what is democratically possible when he talks of a 70 per cent. margin for any transfer of power.
More than 20 years ago I was a junior Minister at the Colonial Office. We tried to produce constitutions for the colonies. We tried to equate minority and majority tribes in Kenya or Tanganyika, as it was then called, or Uganda. We tried to devise different systems of weighted voting. That is precisely what my right hon. Friend is trying to do in Northern Ireland. However, Northern Ireland is not a colony. These are our own kith and kin. To treat Northern Ireland as if it were a colony is an insult to those people and will not succeed.
4.30 am
There is much talk about discrimination. For 18 years I had the honour to represent Preston in Lancashire. It was an entirely industrial town. My majority fell as low as 14 votes. I was rescued by 14 Carmelite nuns, whom I managed to bring in a covered van to vote for me. However, that is beside the point.
The important point is that discrimination was rife in Preston in Lancashire. The electorate was 33 per cent. Catholic. No Catholic in those days ever employed a Protestant and no Protestant employed a Catholic. Over the years, not because I was the Member of Parliament, but when I was the Member of Parliament, that discrimination was phased out. If we had a period of direct rule or perhaps integration, which I would prefer, the discrimination that is causing so much worry to my right hon. Friend would be phased out. If it was not, my right hon. Friend has it in his power through the grant that the Government give local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland to decide whether particular local authorities deserve the grant.
The 70 per cent. proviso is an attempt to discriminate in favour of the minority. We sometimes hear the argument in some of our metropolitan suburbs that we should give more jobs to blacks than to whites and have positive discrimination. My right hon. Friend is trying to discriminate in favour of the minority community. In doing so, I cannot help thinking that he is building a wall between the minority community and the majority community. That will not wear. I assure the Committee that it will not. It is at the root of the problems of the Bill.
It is a folly to think that one can create a happy community by discriminating in favour of the minority against the majority, yet that is precisely what the 70 per cent. proviso seeks to do. Surely it would be wiser to move to local government, as Airey Neave proposed.
My right hon. Friend and his colleagues have been guilty of contempt of the House in the debate. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that an increase in powers for local government would be contentious. He left it at that. Surely he should explain why it is contentious. No attempt has been made to explain it. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State made the same point on the West Lothian problem. His remarks were to the effect that this was very difficult and that the Government could not answer it. But it is contempt of the House to brush aside these enormously important constitutional problems. The West Lothian problem is not one to be easily overlooked. Seventeen Ulster Members—I am glad that the number is to be increased—would be allowed to vote on English housing, education or whatever the issue, with the possibility that none of us would be able to vote on Ulster education, housing or whatever subject may be devolved. It is no damned good—

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Amery: It is no good the Under-Secretary of State saying that this is an insuperable problem. If it is insuperable, the Bill is faulty at the roots and can be corrected only by the 70 per cent. provision, which itself is a negation of any democratic system as we know it. After all, when President Reagan spoke yesterday about a crusade for democracy, the whole emphasis of the speech was that if 51 per cent. of the people decide that something is good, they should be allowed to do it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State are bringing before us a Bill under which there shall be a privileged minority like the Communist Party in the Soviet Union that would be allowed to veto or decide whether things went forward or backwards. This is unacceptable if we are talking about extending democratic devolved government to Northern Ireland.
Surely the conclusion to be drawn is that it is here at Westminster that the democratic rights of the people of Ulster have to be expressed. I am delighted to think that there will be 17 Ulster Members—but do not castrate them by taking away part of the rights and responsibilities for which they should be responsible. Let them exercise here their democratic rights—

Mr. Budgen: I intervene only because my right hon. Friend speaks with such certainty about the 17 Ulster Members. I remind him that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already indicated in some fairly careful words that in the event of there being complete devolution and the final rolling of the programme, there might be some reconsideration of the issue of the 17 Members. There would surely be some considerable argument, particularly among English Members, about the reason for Ulster having 17 Members in the event that it was also enjoying, that is the right word, the final roll of this devolution.

Mr. Amery: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I must say that I have always regarded my right hon. Friend the


Secretary of State as an honourable man and a man of his word. If there was any question of back-tracking on the 17 Members for Northern Ireland, I would not shake hands with him again. Nor, I think, would any hon. Member. That would be betrayal of a major order. It is something that I am sure my right hon. Friend has never contemplated. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will rise to the Dispatch Box if I am wrong. I cannot believe for a moment that he would go back on the pledge to extend the representation of Northern Ireland to 17. Will my right hon. Friend assist me by making it clear that he has no intention of doing anything of the kind?

Mr. Prior: I shall try to assist my right hon. Friend. I have made it clear that the 17 Members provision stands. My reply to a question on the West Lothian principle was that it would be a matter for the House, if it felt so strongly about the West Lothian principle, to take what action it considered right in regard to the number of Members once full devolution has taken place. That is an entirely different matter. Full devolution has not taken place. We stand absolutely by the undertaking that there will be 17 Members. That remains the position.

Mr. Budgen: As one who supports the 17 Members, will my right hon. Friend explain what argument can be put forward to sustain the 17 Members once full devolution takes place? There will be an inevitable pressure from English Back Benchers, for the sake of argument, who see education questions in Wolverhampton or Preston being decided by the 17. Will they not ask "Ought we not go back to the 12", and what will be the counter-argument?

Mr. Prior: I did not want to intervene again in my right hon. Friend's speech, but let me say two things. First, the late Mr. Neave, whose name has already been mentioned a number of times in my right hon. Friend's speech, made it perfectly clear in the discussions on the 17 Members that whether or not there was devolved government in Northern Ireland, he felt that there was under-representation anyhow and that 17 Members were justified. That remains the position.
The answer to the second part of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is that when there was a devolved Government in Northern Ireland before, 12 Members sat in this House and had the same voting capacity as other hon. Members. That did not cause a great deal of trouble. It did on one or two occasions, but I believe that we should live with that, certainly if it helps to produce peace, prosperity and greater security for the people of Northern Ireland, which is the whole purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Amery: I am rather worried by what my right hon. Friend has said. Up to now, Northern Ireland has been grossly under-represented. This was part of a bargain that went along with the devolution to Stormont. The fact that Ministers were never drawn from Ulster representatives was also part of the bargain and was a natural consequence of the fact that the Executive power in Northern Ireland was exercised by the Stormont ministry. Therefore, it was felt to be indelicate and unwise to appoint Ulster Members to ministerial posts in this country.
In my view that was one of the greatest weaknesses of the whole devolution problem. After all, the Scots and

Welsh had their representatives who rose to the highest offices, such as Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, Lord Chancellor and Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was quite normal for the Celtic fringe to occupy the highest places. Indeed, when I first entered a Government, I was one of the very few Englishmen there. Nearly all the Ministers were from the Celtic fringe.
However, there was never an Ulsterman, and that was part of the convention that followed devolution. It is no good suggesting that they were not capable of it. A Province that produces eight Field Marshals out of 12 is perfectly capable of producing two or three Cabinet Ministers of at least the same timber as a great many of the duds we have in the Cabinet today.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The right hon. Gentleman has represented, as a result of a bargain connected with devolution, the fact that there were 12, instead of, say, 17, seats for Northern Ireland. With great respect, he is mistaken about the history. In 1885, when Gladstone produced a scheme for home rule for the island of Ireland, the question was asked, "How then is Ireland to be represented in the Parliament of the United Kingdom?"
4.45 am
To that question, posed on that scale, in those circumstances, there was no satisfactory answer, and, having tried the notion that there would be no representation or that there would be full representation but the Irish Members would stay away when it was not United Kingdom business, Gladstone hit on the illogical compromise, which was eventually forced through in the 1920 Government of Ireland Act, that home rule would be matched by a major reduction in the scale of representation in the United Kingdom Parliament.
At no stage was it part of a bargain in return for Home Rule, and at no stage was the bit that was chipped off related to Northern Ireland in any way part of a bargain or arrangement as the counterpart of home rule imposed on Northern Ireland in 1928.
I apologise for that lengthy intervention, but it is important that it is not thought of as something agreed; it should be seen to be something that was illogical and is only less illogical on a smaller scale because people take less notice of illogicalities if their scale is smaller.

Mr. Amery: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He has done me a service in correcting the historical perspective from which I was speaking. If I understood him aright, the idea put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that if the West Lothian problem proved to be too much of an obstacle there could be a reduction in the representation of the Northern Ireland representatives here, strikes me as something sinister.
If we have to choose between a proper numerical representation that would involve 17 Northern Ireland Members here, or a reduction in that number, plus the kind of bogus devolution to which my right hon. Friend is attached, where there would be a 70 per cent. qualification, giving a veto power to the minority, there would be no doubt which way the House, on both sides of the Chamber, would go. It would be in favour of direct representation and we should sweep aside, as we shall in the discussions on the Bill, this gimmick of 70 per cent.

Viscount Cranborne: My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) has spent a


considerable time during his illuminating remarks examining the consequences of having 17 instead of 12 Members representing the six counties in Westminster. Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate on what would happen in the unlikely event of the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State being successful, and the sort of devolution proposed in that Bill coming to pass?
In the event of the committees adumbrated in the Bill being set up, what would those 17 Members be discussing? Would they merely be discussing matters concerning the Department of Finance and Personnel, as specified in clause 2(4)? If that is so, it seems to me that not only would we be disenfranchised with regard to Ulster affairs, but Ulster MPs would be disenfranchised with regard to the affairs of the people who sent them here.

Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which is for the Secretary of State to answer. Clearly, if we have 17 Members here, they must be allowed to participate in all our deliberations and to vote on them.
That brings us up against the West Lothian problem. Northern Ireland Members will be entitled to vote on English and Scottish education, housing and so forth, and we will not be allowed to vote on Irish education and housing. This is an insoluble problem and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has more or less admitted it. That is one of the basic failings of the Bill and one reason why I am sure that the House will not tolerate its acceptance.
This is why so many hon. Members have asked: why not go for ordinary, proper local government as in England, Scotland and Wales, which, in the ordinary course of events, would deal with housing, education and so many other problems? The Under-Secretary says that that would be contentious. Perhaps it would, but had we not better face something that is contentious but normal?
I shall tell the committee why we are not being allowed to do this. It is not because it is contentious in the House. It is because it is unacceptable to Dublin. Here is the real root of the matter. This takes us back to the starting of devolved Government in Northern Ireland. As I ventured to suggest to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) earlier, Stormont—devolved government—was imposed on Northern Ireland because it was still the hope of the Government in London that the unity of Ireland could be preserved. The Northern Ireland Office is still operating under the memory of the myth that the unity of Ireland can be perpetuated. Therefore, it is dead against what many of us want to see, which is the integration of Northern Ireland into our United Kingdom family. It should be no different from Scotland or Wales in its relation to England.
The Under-Secretary calls it contentious. It is contentious in Dublin. It may be contentious in the United States. It may be contentious outside our kingdom, but it is not contentious in the House. All hon. Members would like to see the Province of Northern Ireland completely integrated into our kingdom if it were possible. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says that we cannot do that because it would be contentious. He does not try to argue the point; he treats the House of Commons with contempt about this. He does not try to explain why it cannot be done. He simply says that it cannot be done; it is contentious. That is what his aide says at the same time. The reason is quite clear. We know it. It is because it might offend Dublin.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that Scotland also has local government which is often contentious? We have had to pass Acts of Parliament because some local authorities, run by authorities that were not in accord with the Westminster Government's views, were acting in a way that necessitated legislation to bring the difficult authorities into line. If that is the kind of problem that is worrying my right hon. Friend in Northern Ireland, he should remember that one party in Scotland, which has been in office for a long period, is very contentious.

Mr. Amery: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no great difficulty. The existence of the local authorities to which my hon. Friend has referred does not really interfere with their commerce with the rest of the United Kingdom. That is what we have been trying to convince my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about.

Mr. Budgen: May I make a further suggestion as to why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is inclined to reject the solution of an extension of local government? He says that local government in Northern Ireland failed in the past because it acted unfairly towards the minority. However, he fails to take into account the fact that when local government failed the people of Northern Ireland, it was supervised by Stormont. The local government that we should like to see would ultimately be supervised by Westminster. Stormont became a defective body. We hope that Westminster will be able to protect the rights Of the minority better than a reimposed Stormont.

The Chairman: Order. The amendment has nothing to do with local government or with direct rule. We are dealing with the Assembly and perhaps the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) could confine his remarks to that.

Mr. Amery: I shall, of course, comply with your ruling, Mr. Weatherill. We are dealing with the 70 per cent. provision. In a sense, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is right to say that when there was no 70 per cent. provision, local government may have discriminated against the minority. However, through the grant to local authorities, it is in the Secretary of State's hands to remedy that. That is in his control.
However, the danger is that as a result of the 70 per cent. provision, he will discriminate against the majority. That represents a serious infraction of the democratic principle as we know it. Sometimes, Mr. Weatherill, you have to cast your vole. We accept your verdict because we have been taught and have grown up with that democratic principle. However, we would not take it very well if the figure had to be 70 per cent. If the vote resulted in a 69 per cent. majority and you cast your vote the other way, Mr. Weatherill, we should probably not bow to your decision as we do when you cast your vote on fifty-fifty tie. That is my point, and I hope that the Secretary of State will address himself to it more seriously than he has done so far.

Viscount Cranborne: As always in such debates, I rise with some diffidence. At this late hour we find ourselves considering the guts of the Bill. Given the extraordinary interest in the Bill shown by an increasingly large minority of Conservative Members, it is remarkable that my right


hon. Friend the Secretary of State should persist in the view that we should attempt to make progress on the Bill at this late hour.

Mr. Budgen: May I remind my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the clearest undertaking that he would not press this matter to a vote in the early hours. Of course, we rely upon that undertaking.

Viscount Cranborne: As always, I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. Like him I was fortunate enough to be in the Chamber when my right hon. Friend gave that undertaking. Therefore, I assume that our debates at this advanced hour of the night, or early hour of the morning, can be regarded merely as a preliminary canter before tomorrow's full dress performance. The Committee should note that the interest evinced by Conservative Members has not been mirrored by the official Opposition.
I am lost in admiration at the way in which the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) have for hour after hour sat in virtual immobility watching the proceedings with an occasional quizzical expression but more usually a look of resignation. They have managed to argue that, far from representing nothing less than indifference, the empty Benches behind them represent the contrary. They enjoy the confidence of the members of their party so that those members do not find it necessary to watch the performance of untold heroism and immobility because they know that, sure as eggs are eggs, the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend will be able to sit it out for hours without saying a word.
5 am
If that confidence had been shown during our debates on the Falkland Islands crisis, perhaps we should have been able to get through our business a little quicker than we did on the five or six occasions that we considered that matter.
I should like to consider amendment No. 16 and the question of the 70 per cent. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and others of my hon. Friends who have spoken have pointed clearly to the reason for the inclusion of that figure in subsection (4)(a). It is because the Secretary of State has found it impossible to make the Bill succeed without ensuring that the minority has a built-in protection in the constitutional arrangements.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten) is not leaving his place too precipitantly. In his eloquent summing up on Second Reading he was kind enough to answer an intervention of mine. I interrupted my hon. Friend with great daring and asked him why he quoted what he considered to be the success of the Stormont experience before 1969 as a reason for supporting devolution again. I said:
As a parallel to his case, he"—
that is my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford—
puts forward 50 years of successful devolved government in Northern Ireland. One reason for the success was that the minority in Northern Ireland was given no power of veto while Stormont existed. After it was abolished, the question of power sharing arose. His case is intrinsically different from the parallel that he attempts to draw.
I am all too aware that my eloquence and concision are frequently exceeded by more experienced hon. Members. But my hon. Friend quickly replied:
We both know what happened on the collapse of the Assembly and also what happened in the previous 50 years."—[Official Report, 10 May 1982; Vol. 23, c. 545.]
I have considerable feelings of friendship and respect for my hon. Friend. With even greater diffidence than that with which I approach matters concerning Northern Ireland do I venture the slightest criticism of him. But he did not even attempt to answer my question. The issue is of considerable relevance to the debate on the amendment.
Under Stormont the Province was governed by a simple majority. The system ensured that the majority within the Province always got its way. Since the troubles began in the Six Counties it has become common ground among the Government and Opposition Front Benches—the bipartisan policy is distinguished by the remarkable silence of the right hon. Member for Mansfield and the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race)—and the national press that that type of majority rule is no longer acceptable because it ensures that Ulster will be dominated by the "Protestant majority".
I was privileged to attend an interesting conference last weekend under the auspices of the Council for the Union in Belfast. It was confirmed to me that many Catholics in Ulster are as keen for the Union as Protestants. To use the term "Protestant majority" is a bad habit induced by too much reading of the gutter press, such as The Observer and The Sunday Times.
We have here the logical consequence of the assumption since the collapse of Stormont that the minority must be given a guaranteed voice to protect its position in the government of the Six Counties.
So long as the Government of the United Kingdom—the Imperial Parliament—is struck by that access of conscience and is also dedicated to the cause of devolved government, we must have provision similar to that proposed in clause 1(4)(a) of the Bill. Without it we should have to fall back on the simple majority vote with which we have had to content ourselves in the Mother of Parliaments for several hundred years. Such a thing would never do for the special case of Ulster! It is perhaps unfair to put it in that way because we know that the good will that flows from every pore of my right hon. Friend will induce him to ensure, in any proposals that he makes, that the minority has a fair crack of the whip.
In his haste to ensure that that occurs, my right hon. Friend is doing exactly the opposite of what he wishes. Instead of giving the minority a fair crack of the whip and thereby ensuring that it becomes wedded to the Union, the effect of the 70 per cent. measure will be exactly the opposite. It will encourage among the Loyalist majority in Ulster feelings of discrimination that are dangerous in a minority, but which in a majority could lead to an explosion the like of which we have not seen even since 1969.
It is impossible to solve the apparently insoluble dilemma merely in the context of Northern Ireland. If we try to do that, we shall go round and round in circles, like the present Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins). If we pursue the cauterisation of Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom, in 20 years—perhaps by some lucky chance I shall still be a Member of Parliament—a


Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be introducing yet more proposals designed to ensure a fair solution to the problem.
The 70 per cent. factor is the only way in which we can attempt to square the circle. However, because it is so profoundly unsatisfactory, and because it is like trying to force a piece that does not fit into a jigsaw, it will not work. The Committee should pay heed to the wise words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion and the clearly expressed views of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and others who have spoken with such eloquence and at such length during this long night. The Committee should realise that, although it may not work—here I take the same approach, although in a different context from that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—there is at least a better chance of its working in a United Kingdom context.
5.15 am
If the Northern Ireland conflict can be submerged into a greater whole and the political ring can be held at Westminster rather than at Stormont, there is surely a chance that the conflict can be seen to be rather more parochial than when the boxing ring is set up in Northern Ireland where the conflict seems to take precedence over every other, however important the other conflicts may be to those of us who have concerns which perhaps loom larger on occasion.
If we were to submerge the Ulster conflict into the forum of the Westminster Parliament, it would be much easier for those inhabitants of the United Kingdom and their representatives who hail from the Six Counties to play a full part in the affairs of the United Kingdom and as a result find it easier to direct their gaze at matters which do not solely concern Belfast, Londonderry, Coleraine, South Armagh or wherever within the Six Counties.
That is why the matter of the 70 per cent. has a direct bearing on the question of devolved government as against integrated government at Westminster. If that 70 per cent. were not proposed by my right hon. Friend, he would have to go back to the proposal of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) for the old Stormont system of majority rule. That means inevitably entrenching the position of the majority in Ulster.
Because this connection seems very clear to me at least, even at 17 minutes past 5 in the morning, my right hon. Friend ought to consider that, by trying to devolve the government of Ulster as he has proposed, he has fallen between two stools and has had to compromise with the 70 per cent. proposed in subsection (4)(a). It would have been much clearer if he had drawn a distinction between legislative and executive devolution.
I know that I risk your grave displeasure, Mr. Weatherill, if I stray beyond the bounds of order, but I feel that strictly relevant to this is the whole matter that we discussed on subsection (1). I make no more than a passing reference to it; if I went further, you would stop me because we discussed this exhaustively last night. I merely repeat if it were not for the muddle that has occurred in the drafting of the Bill and the blurring of the distinction between legislative and executive devolution, we would not find ourselves in this difficulty over the 70 per cent. or the greater than the simple majority formula under subsection (4)(a).
The reason for this has been clearly put in a recent textbook published by Professor, now Lord, Beloff and

Miss Gillian Peele. It is an interesting volume entitled "The Government of the United Kingdom: Political Authority in a Changing Society". It is a long tome, and I do not propose to quote more than a couple of sentences. One passage from the chapter on local government encapsulates the difference between local government and legislative government. If you will allow me, Mr. Weatherill, I shall quote from page 246:
It has been said for example that one of the most important features of British local government is the ultra vires rule, which means that local authorities have no independent legal competence—as they do in France—but derive all their powers from Parliament";
and:
The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were periods when local authorities were extremely active as promoters of private acts of Parliament which would enable them to engage in new activities".
I have quoted those two sentences because, with the authority for local government coming from this Parliament, the confusion which arises from the proposals contained in the Bill is avoided. The objection which is often raised—I confess that I am not an expert on the subject—is that the distinction between local government on this side of St. George's Channel and the legislative powers enjoyed by central Government here is often muddied by the fact that local government tries to take powers and when it does that it has to do so by promoting Private Bills in the House of Commons. The distinction is still maintained.
I suggest that if, instead of fiddling about with the 70 per cent. formula in an attempt to square the circle, my right hon. Friend made a clear distinction between legislative and executive devolution, we should not find ourselves in the present difficulty of examining a proposal which contains the seeds of its own unworkability. Although I would find it difficult to vote for amendment No. 15 because it perpetuates the idea of devolved and legislative rule in Ulster, there is at least an argument for not voting for subsection (4)(a), as it stands.
I am, therefore, in considerable difficulty. If we vote for amendment No. 15, we are following the hon. Member for Antrim, North down the road of devolved and integrated government for the Six Counties in a form which would prove as unworkable as the Stormont experiment did after 50 years, and as unworkable as I fear my right hon. Friend's well-intentioned proposals in subsection (4)(a) will prove.
I therefore suggest to my right hon, and hon. Friends that the only sensible thing to do, if we vote on amendment No. 15 alone, is to abstain. I know, Mr. Weatherill, that you, in your wisdom, have decided that we must vote on other amendments at the same time. If we are invited to vote on amendment 15 alone, it will be more sensible for those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who feel that the course of integration will lead to legislative devolution and allied movements not to vote at all. Therefore, on this issue, I say a plague on both your houses.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: The central purpose of the Bill is to contrive an equipoise between the minority and majority communities. Indeed the proposals for rolling devolution seem to be designed to create a constitutional arrangement in which the Secretary of State can institutionalise the community divide. Naturally, his belief must be that this will neutralise inter-community conflict and permit the agreement which no doubt exists between the majority and the minority on more mundane and day-to-day issues to


become apparent and to enable the majority and the minority to co-operate in them in the normal political activities either of devolution or of any other political form in the Province.
Unfortunately, this formula, I believe, will have the opposite effect from that intended by my right hon. Friend. It will make a vote for the minority individual or interest more valuable than a vote for the majority. At the very least that must strike the majority as undemocratic and unfair. It might be worth creating those feelings or allowing them to develop if that was the only price that would have to be paid for producing a harmonious effect, but I am certain that that will not be the only price. My right hon. and hon. Friends have already described various aspects where that will be so. Certainly, the minority will always have an influence equal to the majority in the devolved Assembly. It will be able to veto when it wishes and to pull the rug from under the arrangement.
We have heard that 70 per cent. will not merely be the formula for voting but will also be in the rules and regulations which might be—the way is open—adopted by the House. Perhaps the minority community will not pull the rug away lightly but the ever-present threat that it might must be destabilising. It does not give the minority any incentive to win majority support for any of the issues and attitudes that it holds dear. The minority does not have to do that because it has been given a veto. The minority is already as powerful as the majority. This is a recipe not for advance in Northern Ireland but for immobility and for a political glacier. There is no incentive for the minority to turn itself into a majority. Why should it when it has all the powers of the majority as a minority?
There is encouragement here for the men of violence. The fragility of the arrangement that my right hon. Friend seeks to make must be seen as nothing less than an opportunity for those who want to make the Province ungovernable again. The great strength of direct rule is that it is difficult for the men of violence to do that. They harm and hurt the local community, they hurt individuals and they damage the economy, but they have little effect on the political structure.
That will be very different if my right hon. Friend's proposals come into effect. There will be the vulnerability of a shift of opinion within the Assembly, causing the minority to withdraw its support, and there will be every incentive for the IRA, the men of violence, to put pressure where they think that it will be effective. Their interest lies in a lack of stability, and in the appearance of the ungovernability of Northern Ireland—whether devolved government, local government or integrated government, while it remains within the United Kingdom and within the Union. I fear that my right hon. Friend's 70 per cent proposal will be of far more use to the IRA and its objectives than it will be to inter-community harmony.
5.30 am
My right hon. Friend's hopes of a reduction in violence as a result of the proposed measures being introduced will, I believe, be defeated if the Bill is enacted as drafted. I fear that that will be so if the Bill remains unamended.
The effect of institutionalising the community divide will ensure that the community remains divided. The veto that it will give to the majority will ensure that the majority remains suspicious and nervous and far less ready to accept

any form of all-Ireland dimension or relationship, which on the face of it and logically it would seem sensible to have, certainly in respect of matters of common interest. The minority will feel obliged to use its veto power to insist upon more of this dimension than the majority will feel that it can safely allow.
There is the practical question—it has been raised by many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—of how cross-community support will be calculated and tested and what my right hon. Friend thinks will go to make it. The minority will not consist even in part of non-traditional Unionists because that would mean the Alliance Party, and I do not believe that that is what my right hon. Friend believes is the minority. It cannot be only Catholics because we know that a minority of Catholics, possibly a large one, support the Unionist or the Alliance Party. Presumably the "minority" means Republicans. That means that to get the 70 per cent. agreement that my right hon. Friend is seeking it will be necessary to have an agreement with those and of those who want to see the destruction of the very basis of Northern Ireland's existence as part of the United Kingdom. That is why under what is proposed there can be no movement to devolution.
The Assembly may come if the Bill completes its passage through the House of Commons. We shall then have an extensive talking shop, but an agreement on devolved government cannot come on that basis. It must rule itself out. The House of Commons, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) has said, will not allow devolution to come without a formula—not necessarily the one proposed by my right hon. Friend—to protect the minority, whether or not it needs protecting. That is the belief in this place. Devolution will not be granted without a contrivance of that sort.
The effect of the proposals will return us to the local government solution. That is the only way in which some local political activity can be recreated in Northern Ireland.
The crucial discussion of that matter—here I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South—was not exhaustive. It was sharply and unexpectedly terminated by the closure last night before many members of the Committee, including myself, had an opportunity to express their views. That was a pity, because the amendments contained the one practicable route to restoring a form of devolved political activity in Northern Ireland—the local government form that serves the rest of the United Kingdom well.
It does not take the destabilising devices of the contrivance of devolved government to ensure that there is no discrimination. I am sure that the Secretary of State can do it by administrative means if he has a mind to do so. He could do it by a civil rights committee or by a bill of rights with ready reference to the courts.
It is not my purpose to develop any of those ideas under the heading of the present group of amendments, because they do not rightly and naturally fall there, but it is relevant in showing that the procedure of the clause that we are trying to amend is not satisfactory and that there are other options.
The divide between the two communities cannot be overcome by a formula such as we are discussing. It can only, as several of my right hon. and hon. Friends have


said, be subsumed at Westminster where the conflicts that divide the community in Northern Ireland are not known and where, if it is clear that no more unfortunate essays in devolution are intended, it will be possible to devise thorough and effective ways of examining legislation for Northern Ireland.
No doubt the representatives of Northern Ireland at Westminster will then begin to feel obliged to make links with the major parties to enable them to influence legislation here. That is the only way in which they will be able to bring influence to bear.
I applaud my right hon. Friend's general objective of eliminating the community divide, but by the present proposals, he is on his way to increasing it.

Mr. Prior: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I said some while ago that after three or four of my hon. Friends had spoken, I would consider that we had made sufficient progress. I therefore beg to move, That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

Orders of the Day — Leeds (Industrialised Dwellings)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Mr. Joseph Dean: Although the hour is very late—or early, depending on how one determines it—I am delighted at my good fortune in obtaining this debate on the subject of the effect of industrialised building on the housing revenue account of the city of Leeds. The facts and figures that I quote will relate to) a development known as Hurtslet Grange, which is in fact situated not in my constituency but in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). However, the situation can be multiplied over and over again where local authorities, with full Government encouragement and approval, have built house and flat accommodation using industrialised and semi-industrialised systems.
The main thrust of my argument will be that the blame lies almost entirely with previous Governments. I make no particular criticism of the present Government's role in the production of this type of housing. It was determined some years ago with full Government encouragement for the design, construction and types of building to be used.
To emphasise my point, I refer to circular 76/65 issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on 7 December 1965, when the then hon. Member for Coventry, East, the late Mr. Richard Crossman, was Minister. The circular contained certain recommendations that local authorities were expected to observe, the idea being that in some areas of high population as much as 40 per cent. of the building programme must be carried out by these means.
Some almost copper-bottomed undertakings and promises were also given in the circular by the Government of the day. The circular said, for instance, that prices
for flats (both high and medium-rise) … are already on average slightly cheaper than traditional. For two-storey houses industrialised building is not yet cheaper on average but efficient organisation of supply and demand can bring down the production costs".
That is completely wrong, because costings across the board on the construction of industrialised housing show that it is in fact 20 per cent. dearer.
The circular further states:
On constructional quality: industrialised methods facilitate quality control. They should therefore provide houses of a more even and reliable standard of quality, and be able increasingly to provide a higher standard than can generally be obtained by traditional methods at comparable prices.
I challenge any hon. Member or any Minister to look at some of the property and see whether that promise holds good today.
The most damning paragraph of the circular is paragraph 7 of section C, in which the then Government say:
Appraisals: The first step has been the appraisal of systems, which is being done by the Agency.
That is the National Building Agency.
Where a system is found satisfactory an appraisal certificate is issued. This certifies that the system is sound and suitable for 60-year loan sanction.
That is where I start to differ from the Government's reasoning. In this connection, I refer to a reply from the Minister for Housing. and Construction received by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South, who has


fought a battle for many years about this very poor accommodation in his constituency. My right hon. Friend wrote some time ago pleading the case of the tenants there and suggesting certain courses of action. I am rather surprised at the answer that the Minister gave. Having discussed certain matters with my right hon. Friend in the past, the Minister replied:
I am, of course, concerned about the special problems being experienced by tenants in these flats, but the management and maintenance of council-owned dwellings is, by law, the responsibility of the relevant local authority, and the decision to build them in the first place was of course made by the City Council.
The passages that I have quoted from the circular give the lie to that. There is no doubt that the plans were fully the brainchild of the Government and spawned by them. It is a little less than fair for the present Government to hide behind that letter.
When Hunslet Grange type of construction was being built, a number of us in local government were bitterly opposed to it, but we were over-ruled. It was an excellent and opportune time, during the 10 to 15 years when the massive slum clearance programme was under way, to give Britain a new face. However, I charge the architects, the planners, the large building concerns and successive Governments, who, in the rush to clear slums, failed the nation and left local authorities with problems far worse than the original ones. I see no reason for the local authorities to shoulder the residual financial burden with which they have been left.
I shall give the details now concerning Hunslet Grange and the type and size of the problem that Leeds is left to pick up. If the Minister tells me that the Leeds city council took the decision to demolish the flats, I assure him that no other decision could have been realistically reached. If there is any doubt in the Minister's mind about that, I suggest that he pays a visit to that disgraceful development to see the condition that it is now in.
Hunslet Grange was built over a two-year contract period. Originally the cost was £4·93million. Over 14 years its remedial costs have been almost £1·5 million. That is almost £100,000 a year. The outstanding loan debts now stand at £4·763 million, which includes the remedial work. At 14 per cent. the loan debt repayments are £710,000 per year plus £93,000 for various forms of demolition and compensation, including the loss of revenue, which will be lost because no rents will be taken. The total is £803,000 per year, which will have to be borne by the Leeds housing revenue account for the next 46 years. That also means that 22p per week will be put on the rent of every council tenancy in Leeds for over 40 years.
The Minister may say that nearly half the people receive social security or rent rebate. Surely that is not the argument because at least 50 per cent. of the people will be loaded with an unfair burden. He may say that Leeds did not accept the Government's diktat and put up the rents by £2·50. If it had done so, there would have been about £11 million more of revenue to play with. However, that is not the argument because it would have been grossly unfair to expect the city of Leeds completely to fund the replacement.
One of the more frightening aspects is that Leeds has a severe housing problem, with over 20,000 families still on the waiting list. Hunslet Grange has almost 1,250

family flats, with two or three bedrooms. It follows that the decision taken to demolish them will mean that Leeds, as soon as the finance is available, will have to build the same amount of accommodation of the more traditional low-rise type. At the time of building Hunslet Grange, the average cost of constructing a council house was £3,500. The debt charges over 60 years were about £50,000. A pretty accurate estimate of the cost when Leeds tries to build almost 1,250 houses to compensate the housing stock and replace the flats is £20,000 for each house. If that is taken over a 60-year period, it means a minimum of £150,000 for each house in the long run. I suggest to the Minister that this is grossly unfair.
Because of the concern felt in Leeds, is the Minister prepared to receive a delegation of hon. Members representing the city together with the appropriate officers and repesentatives to discuss the case in detail? I have already stated that I place no blame on the Government for this type of system. What has happened in Leeds is, however, only the tip of an iceberg that is surfacing at an increasingly rapid rate. A written answer that I received today shows that since 1964 nearly 500,000 industrialised or semi-industrialised houses and flats have been built. This shows the dimension of the situation facing the nation.
We have been badly served by the architects and planners involved, by the advice of the National Building Agency and by the building concerns that undertook the contracts. Not only the people and the local authority of Leeds will be interested to hear the Minister's reply. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will also know that an early-day motion with 150 names deals with this very problem.
If this is not the worst problem facing the publicly owned housing stock in this country, it is certainly frightening to consider the consequences. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) for raising this important subject, albeit at a rather unreasonable hour.
The hon. Gentleman has presented his case in a well researched and plausible manner. He has underlined problems in industrialised building which directly affect ratepayers and council house tenants in Leeds, and also tenants in other authorities elsewhere in the country. As a result, the points which the hon. Gentleman has raised and my response to them both have wider application, although I shall deliberately focus on the specific position in Leeds.
I should like to stress at the outset two general points. First, it would be mistaken and unfortunate if industrialised building as a whole were to become synonymous with the kind of defects which have come to light in certain blocks or on certain estates. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction brought out in his answer of 21 May 1982 to the hon. Gentleman, about 1 million dwellings in England and Wales have been built by industrialised methods. These are not solely houses and flats built over the past 20 or 30 years. The process was being used as early as 1919, and continued to be used over the following years.
In the majority of cases, these dwellings, whether built in the 1970s, the 1960s or, indeed, well before, provide


homes that are either acceptable by present-day standards or can be made acceptable once works to remedy the natural processes or ageing or to install modern amenities have been carried out. This does not mitigate in any way the very real difficulties experienced in cases where there are defects to be dealt with. Tenants living in the houses and flats where problems have emerged have had to endure conditions ranging from the irritating to the downright intolerable, and we genuinely sympathise with them. In no way do I wish to underrate what those tenants have experienced.
At the same time, I want to try to put these difficulties into perspective so as to offer a much-needed sense of reassurance to the many occupiers, notably council house tenants, and to the many authorities where dwellings built by industrialised methods have not given rise to the kind of cases that we are now debating.
Secondly, I want to make clear the Government's position in relation to the programme of industrialised buildings, which was concentrated in the late 1960s and 1970s. The hon. Gentleman has already referred to circular No. 76 of 1965, which the Labour Government issued to English local authorities. The circular was clearly intended as a positive encouragement to local authorities to expand and accelerate their housing programmes by looking to the latest developments in building techniques and by exploiting fully system building wherever this could appropriately be employed.
But, as I emphasised in replying to a supplementary question by the hon. Gentleman on 19 May, it does not follow that this absolves local authorities from the consequences of decisions they took locally to adopt a particular system and for construction work that they were responsible locally for supervising. Nor does it offer any kind of guarantee of indemnity against the consequences of failing to observe specifications of inadequate workmanship or of construction defects generally.
On the contrary, I remind the hon. Gentleman that a local authority was required to certify to the Department that the materials and form of construction were appropriate to a building that was to have a life of 60 years or more.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the appraisals conducted by the National Building Agency as set out in the circular. Over the years, the NBA did indeed appraise a considerable number of particular systems, although this did not cover the entirety of cases. The issue of a certificate did not relieve local authorities of the necessity to ensure that specific applications of the system were satisfactory, and that was made plain. Nor did it relieve those commissioning or constructing industrialised buildings from ensuring that the requirements of the system in question were fully and properly supervised and carried out, especially in cases where those requirements imposed stricter conditions and limited tolerances.
To take one example, to which I shall return in a moment, the system evolved by the Yorkshire Development Group was not the subject of NBA appraisal, still less of any Government approval. The authorities participating in the Yorkshire Development Group chose to go it alone, and the responsibility for that decision is theirs.
Against those two points of general background, I turn to the particular Leeds position. It is only right that I should commence by offering the hon. Gentleman reassurance on the Leeds housing investment programme.

The Government's task is to allocate between authorities the resources they see as available nationally for investment in the housing stock.
It is clear that in an area such as Leeds there is a need for refurbishment of certain industrialised dwellings, and in some cases there may even be a need to provide replacement dwellings, as the hon. Gentleman indicated. Our HIP allocations take account of needs that are particular to individual authorities, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall give careful consideration to the case made both by him and by Leeds city council for the level of its allocation in 1983–84 in the light of the HIP returns.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would receive a deputation. I suggest that he sends a copy of what I say to his colleagues in. Leeds, but, if they still wish to see me, I shall be happy to meet them.
I shall now deal in particular with the case that has already featured prominently in correspondence—the Leeds council housing at Hunslet Grange. The system of construction was commissioned by the Yorkshire Development Group. The layout of the estate was designed, and its construction supervised, by the local authority. At no stage were the Government, directly or indirectly, involved. Nor was any other statutory body such as the NBA. Responsibility lies inescapably with the Yorkshire Development Group.
The hon. Member has asked whether the Government are prepared to assist Leeds financially with the costs of either refurbishment or replacement. I want to deal first with capital, then with revenue help.
On the capital side, I have already made it clear that our HIP allocation will take account of the needs that arise from the failures of industrialised dwellings in Leeds, as elsewhere. Performance on capital expenditure is not simply a matter of Leeds looking to the Government. It can take positive steps to help itself.
I hope that the hon. Member will not take it amiss if I say that Leeds could improve substantially on its record last year, which gives every indication of considerable underspend. Taking into account its housing capital receipts, its spending accounts for just over 70 per cent. of its allocation. Even if the capital receipts are ignored, it accounts only for just over 80 per cent., so there is apparent scope for doing better.
Secondly, Leeds could augment its capital receipts and thus its gross allocation by more rapid progress on selling houses to its tenants claiming the right to buy. Leeds has been notably obstructive towards its tenants, advising them to seek guidance from the Department on points that are the responsibility of the local authority. In the 18 months between the beginning of November 1980 and the end of April this year, my Department had to deal with no fewer than 3,687 personal visits and some 12,500 telephone calls from Leeds tenants. As long as that attitude persists, it is difficult to take seriously the Leeds city council claim either that it has the interests generally of its tenants at heart or that it is serious in trying to enhance its capital spending—or, for that matter, its revenue income from sales.
With regard to revenue, I should emphasise that the Government have widened the scope of housing subsidy. Housing subsidy entitlement now takes into account expenditure on management and maintenance of the housing stock and loan charges in respect of repairs financed by borrowing—that is, "capitalised repairs". We


have also abolished the so-called 30-year rule whereby improvement to dwellings built within the previous 30 years were generally excluded from the subsidy calculation. I should also remind the House that we take the costs of demolition into account where housing is to be relocated on the cleared site.
It is not right to imply that the Government have done nothing to help deal financially with the problems arising in industrial dwellings. The hon. Member wanted to argue for special help, and in particular had in mind special financial assistance in respect of loan charges on demolished dwellings. I should be misleading him if I were to suggest that I was able to agree to a general case for a continuing call on the taxpayer for dwellings that no longer exist. My reservations are inevitably reinforced by the fact that, as I have mentioned, expenditure arising from demolition itself counts in the subsidy calculation, as does expenditure on new dwellings to replace those demolished. In the particular case of Leeds, it would be even more difficult to justify special assistance in the light of the rent policy operated by Leeds in recent years. The hon. Gentleman touched on that.
By its own decision, which it is entitled to take, Leeds has deliberately forgone rental income. For example, had it increased its rents for 1981–82 and 1982–83 in line with our national assumptions, its housing income could have been greater by a total of almost £15 million—that is, by about £5 million last year and between £9 million to £10 million this year.

Mr. Joseph Dean: The £15 million figure is in excess. I think that the figure is about £11 million.

Sir George Young: I shall go into those figures and write to the hon. Gentleman. The calculations that my Department has made have produced a figure of £5 million for 1981–82 and about £10 million for this year. That more than accounts for the £1 million figure that was quoted in Hansard on 19 May as falling to the housing revenue account if Hunslet Grange were to be demolished without special assistance being made available.
I do not dispute Leeds's right to exercise its discretion over its rent levels. However, if it has already chosen to maintain rents at a relatively low level, it is more difficult for the hon. Gentleman to allege that the repair and renewal programme which it may face is likely to impose a disproportionate burden on the rents.
I appreciate that what I have had to say will not have come as wholly welcome news to the hon. Gentleman. However, I must make it clear that local authorities must assume the responsibility for the dwellings that they themselves selected and constructed. We are prepared to take into account the capital implications in the HIP allocation. We have already made several subsidy changes that are helpful to authorities in Leeds's position. However, I should not see it as equitable to other authorities to promise Leeds any special treatment such as has been sought on its behalf. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to press this and to bring a deputation to see me, in accordance with the usual custom of Ministers I should be happy to see it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Six o'clock am.